MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIAL§:
Place in book drop to

 

vow 1‘31993'

 

 

LJBRARJES remove this checkout from

__ your record. FINES wfl'l
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
mib4ozpfl1

 

 

 

 

 

 

'FIE‘J

A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS HEARINGS
HELD IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, 1977,
AND DECEMBER 31. 1980

By

Cietus Eugene Kyie

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fuifiiiment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseiing. Educationai Psychoiogy.
and Speciai Education

1985

Dedicated to the foiiowing peopie. who have
meant the most to me throughout my iife:

my mother. Marie Kyie. and the memory of my
father. Cietus H. Kyie. who gave me iife.
iove. and a particuiar set of vaiues; my
wife. Ruthann. daughter. Kristen. and son.
Kevin. who over the years have added new
meaning to my iife. and without whom life

simpiy wouid not be the same.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Credit for the completion of this doctoral dissertation must be
shared with a number of people. I would like to express my apprecia-
tion to Dr. Charles Henley and Dr. Charles Mange for their support and
guidance from the beginning of this project. Dr. Richard Featherstone
and Dr. Dan Kruger must also be recognized for their input. which made
the final product better.

A very sincere thank-you is extended to all the people in the
Compliance. Approval. and Monitoring section of the Special Education
Services Area within the Michigan Department of Education. Their
support and cooperation never faltered from the time I first began
gathering data on hearings until completion of the dissertation. Their
encouragement and assistance are most appreciated.

Finally. words could never express the gratitude I have for my
wife. Ruthann. daughter. Kristen. and son. Kevin. who have had to
endure far too many nights and weekends without their husband and
father so that this dissertation could become a reality. Without their

love. support. and understanding. this dissertation would not be.

-'
-,
‘-P

ABSTRACT
A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS HEARINGS
HELD IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BETWEEN OCTOBER 1. 1977.
AND DECEMBER 31. 1980
By

Cletus Eugene Kyle

W

This study was a descriptive analysis of special education due
process hearings held in Michigan between October 1. l977. and
December 3l. l980. in the following five areas: (1) the issues (iden-
tification. evaluation. placement. and free appropriate public educa-
tion) on which the hearings were held. (2) parent and school-district
representatives in local due process hearings. (3) decisions rendered
by local and state hearing officers each year. (4) training provided to
hearing officers in Michigan and the occupations of persons serving as
hearing officers. and (5) any changes in the content and format of

written hearing officer reports.

Mums

One hundred forty local-level hearing officer reports were
reviewed and data on individual hearings compiled. Seventy-four of the
local hearing officer decisions were appealed. and for each appealed

decision the state hearing officer report was also reviewed and

Cletus Eugene Kyle

pertinent data compiled. Information relative to issues. positions of
both the parents and school district. and decisions rendered for all
140 hearings reviewed is presented. In addition. a descriptive narra-
tive is provided for each local hearing that was appealed and the state
hearing officer either modified or reversed the local hearing officer's
decision. Information relative to parent and school district represen-

tation and hearing officers is also included.

Wading:

The issue most likely to be included in a hearing was place-
ment. The issue least likely to be found in a hearing was evaluation.
Parents were represented in hearings by either an advocate or attorney
most of the time. whereas school districts were most likely to be
represented by a director of special education or an attorney. The
school districtfls position was upheld by both local and state hearing
officers much more than the parents' position. University professors.
special education directors. and attorneys presided as hearing officers
in a large majority of the hearings. and by l979 most hearings were

being conducted by trained hearing officers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TEL-ES O O O O O 0 O I O O O O O O O 0
Chapter
I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O I 0

Background . . . . .
Need for the Study .
Purpose of the Study
Definition of Terms
Limitations . . . .
Overview of the Study

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . .
Constitutional Provisions .
Review of Litigation . . . .
The Right to an Education .
The Right to Proper Identification

and

Placement .
The Right to Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review of Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Federal Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review of Hearings Held in Michigan Before 1977

III. PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedures and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of Districts Involved in Hearings . .
Description of the Students Involved in Hearings .
Columnar Presentation of Issues. Positions. and
Decisions--1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Narrative Comments-~1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Emotionally Impaired #l . . . . . .

Page

vii

Emotionally Impaired I3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Emotionally Impaired I7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Learning Disabled #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Trainable Mentally Impaired #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Severely Mentally Impaired il . . . . . . . . . . . 7A
Severely Multiply Impaired fl . . . . . . . 75
Physically or Otherwise Health Impaired #l . . . . . 76

Overview of Issues. Representation. and Decisions--
1977 O O C O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 77
Columnar Presentation of Issues. Positions. and

Decisions--l978................. 3‘
Narrative Comments-~l978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9“
Emotionally Impaired {3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Emotionally Impaired i7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Emotionally Impaired I8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Emotionally Impaired #12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Emotionally Impaired #l3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Learning Disabled #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10“
Learning Disabled #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Learning Disabled #6. . . . . . . . . . . . . '08
Educable Mentally Impaired #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Educable Mentally Impaired #3 . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Trainable Mentally Impaired #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Severely Mentally Impaired #l . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Severely Multiply Impaired #2 . . 117
Overview of Issues. Representation. and Decisions--
1978 I I O O I O O O O O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O '19

Columnar Presentation of Issues. Positions. and

Decisions--1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12h
Narrative Comments--1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1“]
Emotionally Impaired {l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '41
Emotionally Impaired #ll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A3
Emotionally Impaired {l2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14“
Emotionally Impaired #13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A5
Learning Disabled fl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1h6
Learning Disabled #6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘“3
Learning Disabled #8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Educable Mentally Impaired i7 . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Trainable Mentally Impaired I2 . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Trainable Mentally Impaired l3 . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Trainable Mentally Impaired #4 . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Severely Multiply Impaired i3 . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Severely Multiply Impaired I4 . . . . . . . 16“
Physically or Otherwise Health Impaired I2 . . . . . 167

Speech and Language Impaired #l . . . . . . . . 168

Overview of Issues. Representation. and Decisions--
1979 O O O O I O O O O O O I O O O O O C O O C C O 0 I69

V.

Columnar Presentation of Issues.
Decisions-~198O . . . . . . .

Narrative Comments--1980 . . . .
Emotionally Impaired #2
Emotionally Impaired #12
Learning Disabled #2 . .
Learning Disabled #3 . .
Learning Disabled #6 . . . .
Educable Mentally Impaired #5
Trainable Mentally Impaired #5
Severely Multiply Impaired I2
Severely Mentally Impaired #2

Page

Positions. and

O O I O O O O O O 0 I75

. 190
. '92
192
'93
195
197
198
200

Overview of Issues. Representation. and Decisions-—

1980 O O O O C O O O C O O O O

O I O O O O O O O O O 202

Summary of Issues. Representation. and Decisions.

1977-1980 e o o o o o o o o o

O O O O O O C O O O O 207

Representation of Parents and School Districts
at Local-Level Hearings: 1977-1980 . . . . . . . . . 209
Information Relative to Hearing Officer Occupation.

Training. and Selection . . .

O O O O O O O O O O O 2‘7

Information Relative to Content and Format of

Local Hearing Officer Reports
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . .

Summary of Major Findings . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion of Major Findings .
Further Discussion . . . . . .

Recommendations for Further Resea

O O I O C O O O 0 O O 225

. . ......... 228
. . . . . . . . . . . 228
. . . . . . . . . . . 230
. . . . . . . . . . . 230
236
rch . . . . . . . . . 2A2

APPENDICES O O O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2h“

A.
B.

C.

REFERENCES

MODEL FOR REPORT OF THE LOCAL HEARING OFFICER . . . . . 2h5

REPORT OF THE STATE HEARING OFFICER FORM . . . . . . . . 2&8

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM RELATIVE
TO THE SELECTION OF HEARING OFFICERS UNDER THE NEW

SPECIAL EDUCATION RULES . . . .

O O O O O O O O O O O 252

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM RELATIVE
TO PROCEDURAL MATTERS FOR HEARING OFFICERS . . . . . . 256

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM REQUESTING
THE INCLUSION OF SPECIFIC ITEMS IN LOCAL HEARING

OFFICER REPORTS . . . . . . . .

vi

0 O O O O O O O O O O 26]

........... 265

10.
11.
12.

13.

14.
15.
16.
17.

18.

LIST OF TABLES

Breakdown of Issues and Hearings by Disability and
Hearing Number--1977 O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0

Parent Representation at Hearings--1977 . . . . .
School District Representation at Hearings--1977 .
Hearing Decisions--l977 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Breakdown of Issues and Hearings by Disability and
Hearing Number--1978 O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0

Parent Representation at Hearings--1978 . . . . .
School District Representation at Hearings--l978 .
Hearing Decisions--1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Breakdown of Issues and Hearings by Disability and
Hearing Number--1979 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Parent Representation at Hearings--l979 . . . . .
School District Representation at Hearings--1979 .
Hearing DBCIS1ODS"1979 o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Breakdown of Issues and Hearings by Disability and
Hear‘Ing NUMber’-1980 o o o o o o I o o o o o o 0

Parent Representation at Hearings--l980 . . . . .
School District Representation at Hearings--l980 .
Hearing Decisions--198O . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Issues: 1977-1980 . . . . . . . . . . .

Parent Representation at Local-Level Hearings:
1977-1980 c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

vii

Page

78
78
79
80

120
121
122

122

170
171
172

173

203
20H
205
206

208

210

19.

20.

21.
22.

23.

24.

School District Representation at Local-Level
Hearings: 1977-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Local-Level Hearing Decisions and Appeals:
1977-1980 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l O O O O 0

Summary of State-Level Hearing Review: 1977-1980 . . .

Hearing Officer Occupations. Number of Hearing Officers.
and Number of Hearings Conducted. 1977-1980 . . . . .

Number of Local Hearing Officers. Number of Individual
Hearings Held. and Number of Local Hearings Held
by Tra‘il‘led Heai‘1flg 0ff1C6r5--1979 o o o o o o o o o 0

Number of Local Hearing Officers. Number of Individual
Hearings Held. and Number of Local Hearings Held
by Trained Hearing Officers--l980 . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

212

213

21h

218

222

22k

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

On October 1. 1977. the rules and regulations for implementing
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-
142) became effective. These rules and regulations include provisions
designed to (l) assure that all handicapped children have available to
them a free appropriate public education (FAPEN.(2) assure that the
rights of all handicapped students and their parents (or legal guard-
ians) are protected. (3) assist states in providing for the education
of handicapped students. and (4) assess and assure the effectiveness of
efforts to educate the handicapped.

The concept of due process has received much attention since
the enactment of Public Law 94-142. Due process is a legal guarantee
afforded to all parties in any action by a public agency where anew;
civil rights are affected. The Supreme Court has recognized that
requirements for due process vary. as stated in Hannan v. Larche. 1969:

"Due process" is an elusive concept. Its exact boundaries are

undefinable. and its content varies according to specific factual
contexts. ‘Thus. when governmental agencies adjudicate or make
binding determinations which directly affect the legal rights of
individuals. it is imperative that those agencies use the procedure
which has traditionally been associated with the judicial process.

. . . Whether the Constitution requires that a particular right
obtain in a specific proceeding depends upon a complexity of

factors. The nature of the alleged right involved. the nature of
the proceeding. are all considerations which must be taken into
account. (p. 68)
This includes "having the right to protest actions of the State Educa-
tion Agency (SEA) or the Local Education Agency (LEAJ" (Turnbull. 1978.
p. 1). This concept is included in the federal act to insure that the
rights created by the act are actually made available to students with
handicapping conditions. their parents. and the public schools.
One way of expressing this intent is to suggest that the presence
of due process is designed to allow for equal consideration of the
interests of all who are involved in the education of a handicapped
child-~the child. the family. the schools. (Abeson a Zettel. 1978.
p. 125)

Subpart E of the federal rules and regulations for implementing
Public Law 94-142 is entitled "Procedural Safeguards" and includes due
process procedures. Section 300a.500 of Subpart E defines the terms
"consent." "evaluation." and "personally identifiable information" as
they relate to the rules and regulations. It is within this section
that state educational agencies are given the responsibility for
establishing and implementing procedural safeguards that meet the due
process requirements of the federal regulations.

As a part of the due process procedures. Section 300a.502
affords parents the right to inspect and review all education records
pertaining to the determination of eligibility for special education
programs and services (identification). the procedures used to
determine eligibility (evaluation). the assignment of a student to a

specific program (placement). and the provision of a program that meets

stated standards and is provided at no cost to the parents (free

appropriate public education). Section 300a.503 affords parents the
right to obtain an independent educational evaluation at public expense
if they disagree with an evaluation completed by the public agency.
However. the public agency may initiate a hearing to prove that its
evaluation is appropriate. If the final hearing decision is that the
evaluation is appropriate. the parents still have a right to obtain an
independent educational evaluation. but not at public expense. If a
parent does obtain an independent evaluation. the results must be
considered in any decision made relative to a free appropriate public
education for the child and may be presented as evidence at a hearing.

Section 300a.504 of the rules and regulations requires the
public agency to give prior written notice before proposing or refusing
to initiate or change the identification. evaluation. placement. or
provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. This
written notice must include a full explanation of the procedural safe-
guards available to the parents. a description of the action proposed
or refused by the agency. an explanation as to why the action is
proposed or refused. and a description of any options the public agency
considered and the reasons those options were rejected. A description
of each evaluation or report the agency used as a basis for the action
must also be included. This written notice must be provided in the
native language of the parent. or it must be translated by other means
so the parent understands the content of the notice.

Section 300a.504 also requires that parental consent be

obtained before either conducting a preplacement evaluation or

initially placing a child in a program providing special education
services. If a parent refuses to consent to the evaluation. the public
agency may use the hearing procedure to determine if the child may be
evaluated or initially provided special education services without
parental consent. If the hearing officer upholds the public agency.
the agency may evaluate or initially provide special education services
to the child without parental consent. subject to the parent's right to
appeal the hearing decision.

A particularly important aspect of the due process procedures
included in the regulations for Public Law 94-142 is the impartial due
process hearing described in Section 300a.506 (a) and (b). This
section reads as follows:

300a.506 Impartial due process hearing.

(a) A parent or a public educational agency may initiate a hearing
on any of the matters described in 300a.504 (a) (1) and (2).

(b) The hearing must be conducted by the State educational agency
or the public agency directly responsible for the education of the
child. as determined under State statute. State regulation. or a
written policy of the State educational agency. (E212211.B§91§I§£.
August 23. 1977. p. 42495)

Section 300a.504 (a) (1) and (2) referenced in Section 300a.506 pertain
to prior notice and parental consent and read as follows:

300a.504 Prior notice: parent consent.

(a) Notice» Written notice which meets the requirements under
300a.505 must be given to the parents of a handicapped child a
reasonable time before the public agency:

. (l) Proposes to initiate or change the identification. evalua-
tion. or educational placement of the child or the provision of a
free appropriate public education to the child. or

(2) Refuses to initiate or change the identification. evalua-
tion. or educational placement of the child or the provision of a
free appropriate public education to the child. (Eedenal_8&gisien.
August 23. 1977. p. 42495)

Section 300a.504 of the regulations for implementing Public Law
94-142 therefore states that those areas appropriate for the impartial
due process hearing are (l) identification. (2) evaluation. (3) place-
ment. and (4) free appropriate public education.

If a parent or public agency initiates a hearing. Section
300a.506 (c) of the federal regulations requires the public agency to
inform the parent of any free or low-cost legal services available.
Due process procedures within the rules and regulations for implement-
ing Public Law 94-142 afford any party to a hearing the right to "be
accompanied and advised by counsel and by individuals with special
knowledge or training with respect to problems of handicapped children"
(Section 300a.508 [a] [1]). Any party may also "present evidence and
confront. cross-examine. and compel the attendance of witnesses" (Sec-
tion 300a.508 [a] [2]) or "prohibit the introduction of any evidence at
the hearing that has not been disclosed to that party at least five
days before the hearing" (Section 300a.508 [a] [3]). Any party to a
hearing also has the right to "obtain a written or electronic verbatim
record of the hearing" (Section 300a.508 [a] [4]). as well as "written
findings of fact and decisions" (Section 300a.508 [a] [5]).

"Parents involved in hearings must be given the right to have
the child who is the subject of the hearing present. and open the
hearing to the public" (Section 300a.508 [l] [2]). If the whereabouts
of a parent cannot be discovered. no parent can be identified. or the
child is a ward of the state. the public agency is responsible for

assigning an individual to act as a surrogate parent (Section 300a.514

[a] [1] [2] [3]). "The surrogate parent may represent the child in all
matters relating to the identification. evaluation. and educational
placement of the child. and the provision of a free appropriate public
education to the child" (Section 300a.514 [e] [1] [2]).
Federal rules also specify an administrative appeal process if
any party to the initial (local) hearing is aggrieved by the findings
and decision (Section 300a.510). This procedure mandates that the
state educational agency conduct an impartial review of the local
hearing and requires that the state official conducting the state
review
(1) examine the entire hearing record. (2) insure that the proce-
dures at the hearing were consistent with the requirements of due
process. (3) seek additional evidence if necessary. (4) afford the
parties an opportunity for oral or written argument. or both. at
the discretion of the reviewing official. (5) make an independent
decision on completion of the review. and (6) give a copy of the
written findings and the decision to the parties. The decision
made by the reviewing official is final. unless a party brings a
civil action)‘

The August 13. 1980. amendment of Michigan's Special Education Rules

made those rules congruent with the due process requirements set forth

in Public Law 94-142.

.Backgnound

Educators have had to comply with due process requirements only
since the early 19705. Before that. decisions excluding a student from
school. labeling him or her as handicapped. or placing the student in
a special classroom were often made without any regard to fairness or
due process. As a result. handicapped students. both individually and

collectively. were frequently denied an appropriate public education.

In support of the above. consider the following Children's Defense Fund

(1974) findings:
We found that if a child is white but not middle class. does not
speak English. is poor. needs special help with seeing. hearing.
walking. reading. learning. adjusting. growing up. is pregnant or
married at age 15. is not smart enough or too smart. then. in too
many places school officials decide school is not the place for
that child. In sum. out of school children share a common charac-
teristic of differentness by virtue of race. income. physical.
mental or emotional "handicap". and age. They are. for the most
part. out of school not by choice but because they have been
excluded. It is as if many school officials have decided that
certain groups of children are beyond their responsibility and are
expendable. Not only do they exclude these children. they fre-
quently do so arbitrarily. discriminatorily. and with impunity.
(pp. 3-4)

Within the last decade. however. the provision of due process
has changed this condition dramatically. This change has been due
primarily to extensive litigation resulting in court orders and
subsequent legislation requiring that education agencies guarantee due
process protection to handicapped students relative to issues of iden-
tification. evaluation. placement. and the provision of a free approp-
riate public education. The impartial hearing is a major component of

the process guaranteeing protection to handicapped students.

NW

Since the inception of required due process procedures. very
little time has been spent studying the issues (identification.
evaluation. placement. and FAPE) surrounding those due process hearings
held in the state of Michigan. Between October 1. 1977. when Public
Law 94-142 became effective. and December 31. 1980. a minimum of 140

local-level hearings were held in Michigan. Of these 140 local-level

hearings. 74 were appealed for a state-level hearing review as permit-
ted by both state and federal regulations. As of this time. very few
factual data relative to these hearings have been made available con-
cerning (l) the issues surrounding these hearings held at the local
level. (2) persons representing parents and school districts in local
hearings. (3) local and state hearing officer decisions. (4) the
training provided for those persons serving as both local and state
hearing officers. and the occupations of those persons. and (5) any
changes in hearing officer reports between the inception of Public Law
94-142 and December 31. 1980.

These basic data are needed for proper understanding and
planning and will give parents. advocates. educators. hearing officers.
and others interested in the due process hearing procedure a look over
time at both the local hearings and state-level hearing reviews held in
Michigan between October 1. 1977. and December 31. 1980. Only by
looking at such things as hearable issues. parent and school-district
representation. which position (parent or school) was supported at
the local and state hearing review levels. and hearing officer occupa-
tions. over time. can one begin to better understand whether or not
there have been any changes in the conditions and issues associated
with hearings held in Michigan and. if so. what the changes have been.
This study will also provide important baseline data from which the
continued evaluation of the hearing process may be compared and

evaluated.

W

The major purpose of this study is to analyze these hearings
held between October 1. 1977 (the effective date of Public Law 94-142).
and December 31. 1980. in five specific areas surrounding the hearing
process. This is accomplished by reviewing the 140 local-level
hearings and 74 state-level hearing reviews held between October 1.
1977. and December'31. 1980. and information from the State Department
of Education. Special Education Services Area. relative to hearing
officer training. 'This review provided the information necessary to
complete a year-by-year descriptive analysis of (l) the issues (identi-
fication. evaluation. placement. FAPE) around which the hearings have
been centered each year. (2) those persons representing the parents and
school districts in local due process hearings. (3) the decisions
rendered by local and state hearing officers each year. (4) the train-
ing process provided to hearing officers in Michigan and the occupa-
tions of those persons serving as hearing officers. and (5) any changes

in the content and format of written hearing officer reports.

Deiinitions.o£_lenms
1den11£19atlgn--the process of determining through an
individualized education program committee (IEPC) that an individual in
Michigan who is not more than 25 years of age as of September 1 of the
school year of enrollment. has not completed a normal course of study.
and is not a high school graduate. is eligible to receive special
education and related services. This eligibility must be based

on the fact that the individual meets a characteristic or set of

10

characteristics as defined in Rule 340.1703 through Rule 340.1715 of
the Michigan Special Education Rules.

Evaluation-as defined in Section 300a.500 of the rules and
regulations for the implementation of Public Law 94-142:

(C) "Evaluation" means procedures used in accordance with
300a.530-300a.534 to determine whether a child is handicapped and
the nature and extent of the special education and related services
that the chi 1d needs. The term means procedures used selectively
with an individual child and does not include basic tests adminis-
tered to or procedures used with all children in a school. grade.
or class.

.Elacement—-the act of assigning an identified handicapped
student into a specific educational program that provides special

education and related services.

WWW-as defined in Section
300ao4 of the rules and regulations for the implementation of Public

Law 94-142:

As used in this part. the term "free appropriate public
education" means special education and related services which:

(a) Are provided at public expense. under public supervision
and direction. and without charge.

(b) Meet the standards of the State educational agency includ-
ing the requirements of this part.

(c) Include preschool. elementary school. or secondary school
education in the State involved. and

(d) Are provided in conformity with an individualized education
program which meets the requirements under 300a.340-300a.349 of
Subpart C.

It should be noted that this section of the federal rules and
regulations requires that state educational standards be met. as well
as federal standards. In Michigan. the state standard under Rule

340.1701b (d) of the Michigan Special Education Rules requires that

11

instruction be "designed to develop the maximum potential of a
handicapped person."

InddyddMalized_Educat19n_ELQg£anL11EEL--a written educational
program for a handicapped student that is developed and implemented in
accordance with federal requirements. including a statement of the
student's present level of educational performance. annual goals.
including short-term instructional objectives. a statement of specific
special education services to be provided and the amount of time the
student will be able to participate in regular education programs. the
projected date for initiation of services and the expected duration of
those services. and objective criteria and evaluation procedures for
determining at least annually whether or not the short-term instruc-
tional objectives are being achieved.

'Eub119_agency--any state educational agency. local educational
agency. intermediate educational unit. or any other political subdi-
vision of a state that is responsible for providing education to handi-
capped students.

Wenflflb-a
committee required under Michigan's Special Education Code as amended
January 14. 1977. which included. as a minimum. an administrative
representative. instructional personnel. diagnostic personnel. and
parents (who were required to be invited to participate. but whose
attendance was not mandated in order to hold a meeting). whose
responsibility was to recommend regular and special education programs

and services for handicapped students. based on individual student

12

needs. When Michigan's Special Education Rules were amended again on
August 13. 1980. this terminology was not included. The term IEPC for

individualized education program committee is now used.

Wnas defined in rule 340.1706 of

Michigan's Special Education rules:

(1) The emotionally impaired shall be determined through
manifestation of behavioral problems primarily in the affective
domain. over an extended period of time. which adversely affect the
person's education to the extent that the person cannot profit from
regular learning experiences without special education support.
The problems result in behaviors manifested by 1 or more of the
following characteristics:

(a) Inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships within the school environment.

(b) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal
circumstances.

(c) General pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.

(d) Tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated
with personal or school problems.

(2) The term "emotionally impaired" also includes persons who.
in addition to the above characteristics. exhibit maladaptive
behaviors related to schizophrenia. autism. or similar disorders.
The term "emotionally impaired" does not include persons who are
socially maladjusted unless it is determined that such persons are
emotionally impaired.

(3) The emotionally impaired shall not include persons whose
behaviors are primarily the result of intellectual. sensory. or
health factors.

(4) A determination of impairment shall be based on data
provided by a multidisciplinary team which shall include a
comprehensive evaluation by both of the following:

(a) A psychologist or psychiatrist.
(b) A school social worker.

(5) A determination of impairment shall not be based solely on
behaviors relating to environmental. cultural. or economic differ-
ences.

WEN-as defined in Rule 340.1713 of
Michigan's Special Education Rules:

(1) "Specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or
more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding
or in using language. spoken or written. which may manifest itself
in an imperfect ability to listen. think. speak. read. write.

13

spell. or to do mathematical calculations. ‘The term includes such
conditions as perceptual handicaps. brain injury. minimal brain
disfunction. dyslexia. and developmental aphasia. 'The term does
not include children who have learning problems which are primarily
the result of visual. hearing. or motor handicaps. of mental
retardation. of emotional disturbance. or of environmental.
cultural. or economic disadvantage.

(2) The individualized educational planning committee may
determine that a child has a specific learning disability if the
child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability
levels in 1 or more of the areas listed in this subrule. when
provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child's age
and ability levels. and if the multidisciplinary evaluation team
finds that a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual ability in 1 or more of the following areas:

(a) Oral expression.

(b) Listening comprehension.

(c) Written expression.

(d) Basic reading skill.

(e) Reading comprehension.

(f) Mathematics calculation.

(9) Mathematics reasoning.

(3) The individualized educational planning committee may not
identify a child as having a specific learning disability if the
severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the
result of any of the following:

(a) A visual. hearing. or motor handicap.

(b) Mental retardation.

(c) Emotional disturbance.

(d) Environmental. cultural. or economic disadvantage.

(4) A determination of impairment shall be based upon a
comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team
which shall include at least both of the following:

(a) the child's regular teacher or. if the child does not
have a regular teacher. a regular classroom teacher
qualified to teach a child of his or her age or. for a
child of less than school age. an individual qualified
by the state educational agency to teach a child of
his or her age.

(b) At least 1 person qualified to conduct individual
diagnostic examinations of children. such as a school
psychologist. a teacher of the speech and language
impaired. or a teacher consultant.

WWW-«s defined in Rule 340.1705
of Michigan's Special Education Rules:

14

(l) The educable mentally impaired shall be determined through
the manifestation of all of the following behavioral characteris-
tics:

(a) Development at a rate approximately 2 to 3 standard
deviations below the mean as determined through
intellectual assessment.

(b) Scores approximately within the lowest 6 percentiles
on a standardized test in reading and arithmetic.

(c) Lack of development primarily in the cognitive
domain.

(d) Impairment of adaptive behavior.

(2) A determination of impairment shall be based upon a compre-
hensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team which
shall include a psychologist.

(3) A determination of impairment shall not be based solely on
behaviors relating to environmental. cultural. or economic differ-
ences.

WWW-as defined in Rule 340.1704
of Michigan's Special Education Rules:

(1) The trainable mentally impaired shall be determined through
manifestation of all of the following behavioral characteristics:
(a) Development at a rate approximately 3 to 4-1/2 standard
deviations below the mean as determined through intel-
lectual assessment.
(b) Lack of development primarily in the cognitive domain.
(c) Impairment of adaptive behavior.

(2) A determination of impairment shall be based upon a
comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team
which shall include a psychologist.

(3) A determination of impairment shall not be based solely on
behaviors relating to environmental. cultural. or economic differ-
ences.

WWW-as defined in Rule 340.1703
of Michigan's Special Education Rules:

(1) The severely mentally impaired shall be determined through
manifestation of all of the following behavioral characteristics:

(a) Development at a rate approximately 4-1/2 or more
standard deviations below the mean as determined
through intellectual assessment.

(b) Lack of development primarily in the cognitive
domain.

(c) Impairment of adaptive behavior.

15

(2) A determination of impairment shall be based upon a
comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team
which shall include a psychologist.

(3) A determination of impairment shall not be based solely on
behaviors relating to environmental. cultural. or economic differ-
ences.

WWW-$5 defined in Rule 340.1714
of Michigan's Special Education Rules:

(1) The severely multiply impaired shall be determined through
the manifestation of all of the following behavioral characteris-
tics:

(a) Multiple handicaps in the physical and cognitive
domains.

(b) Inability to function within other special education
programs which deal with a single handicap.

(c) Development at less than the expected rate for the age
group in the cognitive. affective or psychomotor
domains.

(2) A determination of impairment shall be based upon a
comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team
which shall include a psychologist. a neurologist. and an ortho-
pedic surgeon. an ophthalmologist: or an otolaryngologist and an
audiologist. depending upon the handicaps defined in this part.

(3) A determination of impairment shall not be based solely on
behaviors relating to environmental. cultural. or economic
differences.

WWI-as defined in
Rule 340.1709 of Michigan's Special Education Rules:

(1) The physically and otherwise health impaired shall be
determined through the manifestation of a physical or other health
impairment which adversely affects educational performance and
which may require physical adaptations within the school
environment.

(2) Determination of impairment shall be based upon a
comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team
which shall include an orthopedic surgeon. internist. neurologist.
pediatrician. or osteopathic internist.

(3) A determination of impairment shall not be based solely on
behaviors relating to environmental. cultural. or economic
differences.

WWII-as defined in Rule 340.1708 of
Michigan's Special Education Rules:

16

(l) The visually impaired shall be determined through the

manifestation of both of the following:
(a) A visual impairment that interferes with development.
or adversely affects educational performance.
(b) One or both of the following:
(i) A central visual acuity of 20/70 or less in the
better eye after routine refractive correction.
(ii) A peripheral field of vision restricted to not
more than 20 degrees.

(2) A determination of impairment shall be based upon a
comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team
which shall include an ophthalmologist or optometrist.

(3) A determination of impairment shall not be based solely on
behaviors relating to environmental. cultural. or economic differ-
ences.

WWI-as defined in Rule 340.1707 of
Michigan's Special Education Rules:

(1) The hearing impaired shall be determined through manifesta-
tion of a hearing impairment which adversely affects educational
performance.

(2) A determination of impairment shall be based upon a
comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team
which shall include an otolaryngologist and an audiologist.

(3) A determination of impairment shall not be based solely on
behaviors relating to environmental. cultural. or economic differ-
ences.

WW"BS defined in Rule 340.1710
of Michigan's Special Education Rules:

(1) The speech and language impaired shall be determined
through the manifestation of 1 or more of the following
communication impairments which adversely affects educational
performance:

(a) Articulation impairment. including omissions. substi-
tutions. or distortions of sound. persisting beyond
the age at which maturation alone might be expected
to correct the deviation.

(6) Voice impairment. including inappropriate pitch.
loudness. or voice quality.

(c) Fluency impairment. including abnormal rate of speak-
ing; speech interruptions; and repetition of sounds.
words. phrases. or sentences. which interferes with
effective communication.

17

(d) One or more of the following language impairments:
phonological. morphological. syntactic. semantic. or
pragmatic use of aural/oral language as evidenced by
both of the following:

(i) A spontaneous language sample demonstrating
inadequate language functioning.
(ii) Test results. on not less than 2 standardized
assessment instruments or 2 subtests designed
to determine language functioning. which indicate
inappropriate language functioning for the child's
age.

(2) A handicapped person who has a severe speech and language
impairment but whose primary disability is other than speech and
language shall be eligible for speech and language services
pursuant to R 340.1745(a).

(3) A determination of impairment shall be based upon a compre-
hensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary team which shall include
a teacher of the speech and language impaired.

(4) A determination of impairment shall not be based solely on
behaviors relating to environmental. cultural. or economic differ-
ences.

.IeacheL_CQn§ultant_CE£D:-a special education approved teacher

with aininimum of three years of satisfactory teaching experience. with
at least one year of experience teaching handicapped students in a
special education classroom. and who is officially designated as a T-C.
A teacher consultant provides instructional or other support services
to students who have been identified as handicapped. but may be edu-
cated appropriately within a general education classroom if supportive

service is provided to them.

IJnflJations
This study is descriptive in nature. As stated by Borg and

Gall (1979). the purpose of a descriptive study is to "collect
information that permits us to describe the characteristics of persons
or an educational process or an institution. Careful quantitative

description by itself often leads to improved understanding of

18

educational phenomena" (p. 38). It is important for both the
researcher and the reader to remember that in a study of this nature
cause cannot be determined. Although the primary intention of this
study is to describe. rather than show cause» some descriptive
information may lead to certain hypotheses for further study that may
relate to cause.

When a study uses information from only one state. both the
researcher and the reader must remember that the information contained
in the study is applicable only to the state studied. Information and
results obtained in this study reflect the "state of the art" of due
process hearings held in Michigan between October 1. 1977. and
December 31. 1980. Although one might predict that the data and
conclusions found in Michigan may very well reflect the situation
within other states. this would be pure speculation.

Most hearing officer decisions now rendered include a section
entitled "Findings of Fact." which contains information found in the
record of the hearing such as the identified needs of the student and
the program or service required to meet those individual needs. Many
of the decisions reviewed for this study did not include a specific
section entitled "Findings of Fact." so such information is not
included. Most current local hearing decisions also contain a section
entitled "Conclusions of Law." which have a direct bearing on the
decision rendered. Many of the hearing officer reports reviewed for

this study also did not contain a "Conclusions of Law" section.

19

The only five areas of the hearing process included in this
study are: (l) the issues around which hearings were held in the four
years included in this study. (2) representation of parents and school
districts at local-level hearings. (3) decisions rendered by both local
and state hearing officers. (4) the training process provided to Michi-
gan hearing officers and the occupations of those persons serving as
hearing officers. and (5) any changes in the content and format of

written hearing officer reports.

W
Chapter II of this study provides a review of litigation and

legislation pertinent to due process. including a review of due process
hearings held in Michigan before the implementation of Public Law 94-
142. Chapter III describes the procedures and methodology used to
obtain and present the data for the study. Chapter IV is a presenta-
tion and discussion of the data obtained by reviewing the 140 local-
level hearings and 74 state-level hearing reviews. The data are
presented on a yearly basis and include both tables and discussion
relative to hearing issues. school district representation. parent
representation. local-level hearing decisions. and state-level hearing
decisions for that particular year. Chapter V contains a summary of

major findings. discussion. and recommendations for further research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction
The first part of this chapter reviews the United States and

Michigan constitutional provisions that guarantee a handicapped child
the right to a public education. 'This is followed by a review of
litigation that precipitated due process of law procedures and mandates
in the field of special education. This litigation review is broken
down into the following three areas: (1) the right to an education.
(2) identification and placement. and (3) the right to due process. The
litigation review is followed by a review of both Michigan and federal
legislation relevant to due process. This is followed by a review of
due process hearings held in Michigan before the implementation of
Public Law 94-142 in 1977. The chapter concludes with a review of a
cost-analysis study of special education due process hearings held in

Michigan between September 1. 1980. and August 31. 1981.

We
The United States Constitution affords no protection directly

relating to a handicapped person's right to an education. In fact. the
Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution affords no right to an

education (San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez. 1973). However.

20

21

the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution says that no state
may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws)‘ Since the Supreme Court.ruling in Brown v. Board of
Education (1954). equal protection of the laws in education has been
deemed to mean the right to equal educational opportunity.

The Fourteenth Amendment also forbids a state to "deprive any
person of life. liberty. or property. without due process of lan' The
term "liberty" as used in this context is broad. In 6055 v. Lopez
(1975). the Supreme Court determined it to include situations in which
someone's honor. good name. reputation. or integrity is at stake
because of what a government body is doing to the person. Under these
circumstances. any action that might be deemed stigmatizing could also
be a breach of "libertyJ' The two phrases quoted above comprise the
equal protection and due process clauses of the federal Constitution.

The due process clause of the federal Constitution also applies
to school systems (government bodies). The issues of procedural due
process arise when a state is alleged to have deprived someone of an
interest in liberty or property. If a state is to take action that
will deprive someone of these rights. it cannot do so arbitrarily. It
can only be done after specified due process procedures are followed.
Substantive due process is a requirement that a state's laws be reason-
able relative to classifications established (such as handicapped) and
requires equal protection of the law for all persons.

In 6055 v. Lopez (1975). the Supreme Court determined that the

right to a free public education is a property right within the

22

Fourteenth Amendment. Once a state has given the right to an education
(as has Michigan in the State Constitution of 1963). it cannot withdraw
that right without first providing the student access to due process
procedures which include. as a minimum. prior notice of the action the
state proposes to take and an opportunity for the person to be heard in
a fair and impartial manner. In Mills v; Board of Education of the
District of Columbia (1972). it was determined that a school cannot
remove a student from a regular classroom setting unless it is able to
substantiate the need to do so within an impartial forum which provides
all parties the right to be heard.

The broad meaning of liberty within the federal Constitution.
when applied to special education. means that a school system cannot
label students as handicapped unless there is some hearing procedure
allowed in the event of a dispute. Thus. the federal Constitution may
be applied to prevent a school system from indiscriminately labeling
students as handicapped. which could potentially create long-term
negative consequences such as the inability to secure employment or
judgment of incompetence to make one's own decisions. As shown
earlier. the regulations for both state and federal special education
law specify the rights and procedures for disputes in the special
education area.

Although the United States Constitution does not directly speak
to the right to an education. the Tenth Amendment states that "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor

prohibited by it to the States. are reserved to the states

23

respectively. or to the people)‘ The actual onus for a right to an
education is therefore put on the individual states by the Tenth Amend-
ment to the United States Constitution.

The right to an education in Michigan is provided in Section 2
of Article VIII of the state Constitution of 1963. which states that
"The legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public
elementary and secondary schools as defined by lan' Section 8 of the
same article states that "Institutions. programs and services for the
care. treatment. education or rehabilitation of those inhabitants who
are physically. mentally or otherwise seriously handicapped shall
always be fostered and supported." Given the terms of our state Con-
stitution. the state's obligations relative to the delivery of special
education programs and services are defined within our state mandatory

special education act. Public Act 451 of 1976.

W100

Before the early 19705. pertinent educational decisions
relating to the right to an education. identification and placement
into special classes. or exclusion from school were all too often made
with little regard for fairness or due process procedures. Within the
last decade these circumstances have changed dramatically. Extensive
litigation. combined with broad-sweeping legislation. has resulted in
requirements that state. intermediate. and local educational agencies

guarantee rights to handicapped students previously not afforded.

24

WW

The basis for the right-to-education cases can be found in
Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In this decision the United States
Supreme Court stated:

In these days. it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be
expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an
education. Such an opportunity where the state has undertaken to
provide it. is a right which must be made available to all on equal
terms. (347 U.S. 483. 1954)

Although this decision related to public school segregation
based on race. the fundamental position that when a state chooses to
provide education. it must be made available to all on equal terms. is
the foundation on which later arguments relating to handicapped
children were based.

Doe v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors (Circuit Court of
Milwaukee County. 1969) was a class action suit in which the plaintiffs
were represented by John Doe. a l4-year-old trainable mentally retarded
student. The suit focused on the fact that John Doe had been tested by
a school psychologist. who determined that he was mentally retarded and
in need of placement in a class for the trainable mentally retarded.
yet he was placed on a waiting list for the program. It was alleged
that this was a violation of the equal protection clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.

The plaintiffs in this case argued that two separate violations
occurred. First. as a school-age resident of Milwaukee. John Doe was

guaranteed an education by the Wisconsin Constitution. Second. under

Wisconsin law. school districts are required to accommodate school-age

25

children with various handicaps. including mental disabilities. ‘This
case also contended that at the same time of the complaint 400 other
trainable mentally retarded students were attending appropriate
classes. Therefore. by denying the plaintiffs access to such programs.
the defendants were denying them equal protection of the law.

The plaintiffs sought a temporary order requiring immediate
enrollment in an appropriate class for trainable mentally retarded
students. and an order keeping the defendants from maintaining a
waiting list that denies a public education to those students requiring
a special education placement. .A temporary injunction was ordered. and
the public schools were ordered to admit the plaintiffs into programs
serving the trainable mentally retarded.

In January 1971. the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded
Children (PARC) filed suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for
failure to provide all retarded children access to a free public
education. In addition to PARC. the plaintiffs included 14 mentally
retarded children of school age who were representing themselves and
"all others similarly situatedJ' The defendants included the state
secretaries of education and public welfare. the state board of
education. and 13 named school districts. representing the class of all
of Pennsylvania's school districts.

This suit specifically challenged public policies and practices
which excluded. postponed. or denied free access to public education
for school-age mentally retarded children who could benefit from such

education. Testimony focused on the following major points:

26

l. Mentally retarded children can learn if provided educa-
tional programs.

2. Education cannot be defined solely as the provision of
academic experiences to children. Education must be seen as a
continuous process by which individuals learn to cope and function
within their environment. For children to learn to clothe and feed
themselves is a legitimate outcome achievable through an educational
program.

3. The earlier these children are provided with educational
experiences. the greater the amount of learning that can be predicted.

On October 7. 1971. the parties reached a consent agreement
which contained the following provisions:

1. Access to free public programs of education and training is
to be provided to any mentally retarded child.

2. Charging of tuition or maintenance to a mentally retarded
child. except on the same terms as may be applied to other exceptional
children. including brain-damaged children. is to be prevented.

3. Home-bound instruction is to be provided to the mentally
retarded.

4. The defendants were to provide. as soon as possible. access
to a free public school program of education and training appropriate
to the learning abilities of each plaintiff and each member of the

plaintiff class.

27

5. The defendants were required to provide pre-school programs
of education and training for mentally retarded children wherever such
programs are available for nonretarded children.

An October 1971 injunction prohibited the state from applying
any law that would postpone. terminate. or deny any mentally retarded
children access to a publicly supported education. including a public
school program. tuition or tuition maintenance program. and homebound
instruction. The plaintiff students were to be reevaluated and placed
in appropriate programs. and by September 1972. all retarded students
between the ages of 6 and 21 years were to be provided a publicly
supported education.

The parents of mentally retarded children won a major decision
in the PARC case. The United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania had ruled that all mentally retarded children
were to have available a free appropriate public education. As a
result of this case the state of Pennsylvania was also required to
locate. evaluate. and reevaluate all children of school age who had
been excluded from public schools. This case has become a landmark
because it determined that all mentally retarded persons are capable of
benefiting from education and training. the majority are capable of
achieving self-sufficiency. and those who are not. are capable of
achieving some degree of self-care when provided such education and
training.

In August of 1972. the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia rendered another landmark decision pertaining to

28

the right to an education for handicapped students. In Mills v. Board
of Education of the District of Columbia. the parents and guardians of
seven District of Columbia children brought a class action suit against
the Board of Education. the Department of Human Resources. and the
mayor for failing to provide all children with a publicly supported
education.

The plaintiff students ranged in age from 7 to 16 years and
were alleged by the public schools to have the following problems that
led to denial of educational opportunities: (1) slightly brain dam-
aged. (2) hyperactive behavior. (3) epilepsy. (4) mental retardation.
and (5) mental retardation with an orthopedic handicap. Three children
resided in public residential institutions with no educational program.
The remaining four students lived with their families. had been denied
entrance to educational programs. and were placed on a waiting list for
tuition grants to receive a private educational program. In none of
the cases had tuition grants been provided.

A court-issued agreement and order provided for the following
in this case:

1. The plaintiffs were to be provided with a publicly sup-
ported education according to their needs.

2. The defendants had to provide a list of all school-age
children not receiving a publicly supported education due to suspen-
sion. expulsion. or any other denial of placement. showing the name of
the child's parents or guardian: the child's name. age. address. and

telephone number: and the date that services were denied.

29

3. The defendants were also to initiate efforts to identify
all other similar students not previously known.

On August 1. 1972. the judge who heard this case issued an
opinion that generally supported all arguments presented by the
plaintiffs. In his opinion. the judge addressed a number of key
points pertaining to issues that were not unique to the District of
Columbia but were common throughout the nation. One of these issues is
that parents who do not comply with the District of Columbia compulsory
school attendance laws are committing a criminal offense. Therefore.
the fact that parents are required to ensure that their children attend
school under threat of possible criminal penalties presupposes that an
educational opportunity is available. The judge stated that by failing
to provide the plaintiffs a public education to which they were
entitled. the defendants violated their own statutes and regulations.

Another key issue to which the judge responded that was not
unique to the District of Columbia was the defendants' claim that they
could not afford the relief sought by the plaintiffs unless Congress
appropriated more funds. or funds were diverted from other educational
programs and services for which they had been appropriated. ‘The court
responded by saying that the defendants were required by the United
States Constitution. the District of Columbia Code. and their own
regulations to provide a publicly supported education for the plain-
tiffs. and the District of Columbia's interest in educating those
children who had been excluded must outweigh the interest to preserve

financial resources.

30

The right to public education has been affirmed in other court
cases. as well. In Cook v. Edwards (1972). the Federal District Court
stated that

There is no question that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable
harm if her school career is permanently terminated and this may
well result if her indefinite expulsion continues.... . No
authority is needed for the fundamental American principle that a
public education through high school is a basic right to all
citizens. (p. 311)

Similarly. the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Lee v.

Macon County Board of Education (1974) that
A sentence of banishment from the local educational system is.
insofar as the institution has power to act. the extreme penalty.
the ultimate punishment. . . . Stripping a child of access to
educational opportunity is a life sentence to second-rate
citizenship. (p. 460)
The right of a handicapped child to an education was further affirmed
in Maryland Association for Retarded Children vu State of Maryland
(1974) when the Circuit Court determined that it was the policy of the
state of Maryland to provide a free education to all persons between
the ages of 5 and 20 years. including students with handicaps. and
particularly those identified as mentally retarded. regardless of the
level of retardation.

There can be no question. The courts have spoken. and the
message is loud and clear; Any time>a state provides an education for
any students through the use of public funds as a matter of public
policy. then it must also assume full educational responsibility for
all children. The right to a free appropriate public education for

handicapped children has been determined through the courts. Even

though the right to an education for all handicapped children has been

31

granted through the courts. the delivery system for the provision of
appropriate educational programs and services must be provided through
mandatory special education laws. and rules and regulations for the

implementation of those laws.

W
Identiiicatmndflacement

The first significant litigation challenging the use of tests
to label and place school children was Hobson v. Hansen (1967). in
the United States District Court. District of Columbia. in which the
tracking system in the Washington. 042. public schools was challenged.
This was a class action suit on behalf of black school children. The
defendants were the superintendent of schools and other school offi-
cials. The issues involved were whether or not the Stanford Achieve-
ment Test and the Otis Test of Mental Ability were culturally biased
and whether or not tracking led to unequal educational opportunities.
The District Court ruled that the tracking system was indeed
discriminatory and that placement within tracks was based upon discri-
minatory standardized tests and was therefore illegal. The signifi-
cance of this case is the courtfls reaction to standardized testing and
how tests are used for placement and tracking. Perhaps the most criti-
cal feature of this case was expressed by the judge. who wrote in his
opinion:
The real tragedy of misjudgments about the disadvantaged students'
abilities is . . . the likelihood that the student will act out the
judgment and confirm it by achieving only at the expected level.

Indeed. it may even be worse than that. for there is strong
evidence that performance in fact declines. . . . (p. 401)

32

Another important case relating to identification and placement
was Diana v. State Board of Education (1970). heard in the District
Court of Northern California. This class action suit was filed on
behalf of Mexican-American children placed in classrooms for the edu-
cable mentally retarded in California. ‘The case was settled out of
court when agreement was reached on the following points:

1. All children whose primary home language was other than
English had to be tested in both the primary language and in
English.

2. Mexican-American and Chinese children already in classes
for the mentally retarded had to be retested in their primary
language.

3. In a school district which had a sufficient disparity
between the percentage of Mexican-American students in their
regular classes and its classes for the retarded. an explanation
citing the reasons for this disparity had to be submitted.

4. School psychologists were to work on norming a new or
revised 1.0. test to reflect Mexican-American culture.

5. Competent school psychologists should administer individual
intelligence tests in primary language. or seek out an interpreter
who may be either a psychology trainee or intern or some»other
employee of the school district.

6. Every school district was to submit to the state before the
next school year. a summary of retesting and reevaluation and a
plan listing special supplemental individual training which would
be provided to help each student back into the regular school
classes.

The Diana case truly brought to light the inadequacy and
inappropriateness of testing minority students in a language other than
their native language and then placing them in programs for the
mentally retarded. based on their test scores.

In Stewart v. Phillips (1970). the United States District Court
of the State of Massachusetts heard issues including not only whether
intelligence tests were culturally biased and discriminatory. but

whether irreparablerharm results from misclassification and from lack

33

of placement in a special education program if one is. in fact.
retarded. ‘This case also dealt with the issue of whether or not
parents have the right to review test scores and participate in the
placement decision. This case resulted in the Massachusetts State
Board of Education's passage of the following new regulations germane
to the topic of identification and placement:

1. Education programs for children with special needs must. to
the degree possible. be integrated rather than separate and isolated.

2. Children may not be denied education solely on the basis of
1.0. scores.

3. Children may not be denied required education. or placed in
a special program or tracked. without a complete evaluation including
family background.

4. Persons must be informed of a proposed evaluation. the
results. and any recommendations of the evaluation team.

Another California case involving testing procedures was
Larry P. v. Riles (1972). heard by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The plaintiffs in this class action
suit were black children who had been placed in classes for the edu-
cable mentally retarded after scoring below 75 on one of several intel-
ligence tests authorized for use by the State Department of Education.
The plaintiffs produced evidence that these classes were racially
imbalanced. .As an example. black children constituted approximately
29% of all students in the school district. but 66% of all students in

the classes for the educable mentally retarded were black.

34

Although the school system offered the explanation that black
children were more frequently found in classes for the mentally
retarded because of poor nutrition of their mothers. rather than
inherited differences in intelligence. and that Californiabs education
code had been followed in using a number of measures besides intelli-
gence quotient scores to place children. the court ordered the school
district to refrain from administering intelligence tests for the
purpose of placing black students in classes for the educable mentally
retarded. The court determined that there was substantial emphasis
placed on the test scores which resulted in a denial of equal protec-
tion.

Other cases such as Guadalupe vz'Tempi Elementary School
District (1971). heard in the United States District Court of Arizona;
Covarrubias v. San Diego Unified School District (1972). heard in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California:
and LeBanks v. Spears (1973). heard in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana. all involved issues pertaining
to student identification and placement and helped pave the way for
legislation requiring that due process rights be afforded to handi-

capped students and their parents.

W

Due process requirements of the public schools were first
established in the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Consent Agreement. referred to previously

35

in this chapter. A part of this consent agreement stipulated that no
mentally retarded child could be initially assigned or reassigned to a
regular or special education program or excluded from a public educa-
tion without a prior hearing. As part of the consent order. a detailed
23-step procedure was established guaranteeing due process. including a
hearing. This 23-step procedure. quoted below from the Amended Stipu-
lation of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. has been a model used to develop due process
procedures in subsequent legislation.

(a) Whenever any mentally retarded or allegedly mentally
retarded child of school age is recommended for a change in
educational status by a School District. Intermediate Unit or any
school official. notice of the proposed action shall first be given
to the parent or guardian of the child.

(b) Notice of the proposed action shall be given in writing to
the parent or guardian of the child either (i) at a conference with
the parent or (ii) by certified mail to the parent (addressee only.
return receipt requested).

(c) The notice shall describe the proposed action in detail.
including specification of the statute or regulation under which
such action is proposed and a clear and full statement of the
reasons therefor. including specification of any tests or reports
upon which such action is proposed.

(d) The notice shall advise the parent or guardian of any
alternative education opportunities available to his child other
than that proposed.

(e) The notice shall inform the parent or guardian of his
right to contest the proposed action at a full hearing before the
Secretary of Education. or his designee. in a place and at a time
convenient to the parent. before the proposed action may be taken.

(f) The notice shall inform the parent or guardian of his
right to be represented at the hearing by any person of his
choosing. including legal counsel. of his right to examine before
the hearing his Child's school records including any tests or
reports upon which the proposed action may be based. of his right
to present evidence of his own. including expert medical.
psychological and educational testimony. and of his right to call
and question any school official. employee. or agent of a school
district. intermediate unit or the department who may have evidence
upon which the proposed action may be based.

36

(g) The notice shall inform the parent or guardian of the
availability of various organizations. including the local chapter
of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children. to assist
him in connection with the hearing and the school district or
intermediate unit involved shall provide the address and telephone
number of such organization in the notice.

(h) The notice shall inform the parent or guardian that he is
entitled under the Pennsylvania Mental Health and Mental Retarda-
tion Act to the services of a local center for an independent
medical. psychological and educational evaluation of his child and
shall specify the name. address and telephone number of the MH-MR
center in his catchment area.

(i) The notice shall specify the procedure for pursuing a
hearing.

If the notice is given at a conference with the parent. the
parent may at that conference indicate his satisfaction with the
recommendation and may in writing waive the opportunity for a
hearing or. if dissatisfied. may in writing request a hearing. In
either event. the parent may within five calendar days of the
conference change this decision and may then request or waive the
opportunity for a hearing by so indicating in writing to the school
district or intermediate unit. If the parental decision is
indicated at a conference. the parent shall be given a form which
shall be mailed to the school district or intermediate unit within
five calendar days thereafter. if the parent desires to change the
decision. There shall be no change in educational assignment
during the five day period.

If notice is given by certified mail. the parent must fill in
the form requesting a hearing and mail the same to the school
district or intermediate unit within ten (10) days of the date of
receipt of the notice.

(j) The hearing shall be scheduled not sooner than fifteen
(15) days nor later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the
request for a hearing from the parent or guardian. provided however
that upon good cause shown. reasonable extensions of these times
shall be granted at the request of the parent or guardian.

(k) The hearing shall be held in the local district and at a
place reasonably convenient to the parent or guardian of the child.
At the option of the parent or guardian. the hearing may be held in
the evening and such option shall be set forth in the form
requesting the hearing aforesaid.

(l) The hearing officer shall be the Secretary of Education.
or a person designated by him acting in his stead. but shall not be
an officer. employee or agent of any local district or intermediate
unit in which the child resides.

(m) The hearing shall be an oral. personal hearing. and shall
be public unless the parent or guardian specifies a closed hearing.

(n) The decision of the hearing officer shall be based solely
upon the evidence presented at the hearing.

37

(o) The proposed change in educational status shall be
approved only if supported by substantial evidence on the whole
record of the hearing. Introduction by the school district or
intermediate unit of the official report recommending a change in
educational assignment. provided a copy of such report was given to
the parent at the time notice was given. shall discharge its burden
of going forward with the evidence. thereby requiring the parent to
introduce evidence (as contemplated in paragraphs f. r. s. and t
herein) in support of his contention.

(p) A stenographic or other transcribed record of the hearing
shall be made and shall be available to the parent or guardian or
his representative. Said record may be discarded after three
years.

(q) The parent or guardian of the child may be represented at
the hearing by any person of his choosing. including legal counsel.
(r) The parent or guardian or his representative shall be
given reasonable access prior to the hearing to all records of the
school district or intermediate unit concerning his child. includ-
ing any tests or reports upon which the proposed action may be

based.

(5) The parent or guardian or his representative shall have
the right to compel the attendance of. and to question any witness
testifying for the school board or intermediate unit and any
official. employee. or agent of the school district. intermediate
unit. or the department who may have evidence upon which the
proposed action may be based.

(t) The parent or guardian shall have the right to present
evidence and testimony. including expert medical. psychological or
educational testimony.

(u) No later than twenty (20) days after the hearing. the
hearing officer shall render a decision in writing which shall be
accompanied by written findings of fact and conclusions of law and
which shall be sent by registered mail to the parent or guardian
and his representative.

(v) There shall be no change in the child's educational status
without prior notice and the opportunity to be heard as set forth
herein. except that in extraordinary circumstances the Director of
the’Bureau of Special Education. upon written request to him by the
district or intermediate unit setting forth the reasons therefor
and upon notice to the parent may approve an interim change in
educational assignment prior to the hearing. in which event the
hearing will be held as promptly as possible after the interim
change. The Director shall act upon any such request promptly and
in any event within three (3) days of its receipt.

(w) Any time limitation herein shall be construed and applied
so as to do substantial justice and may be varied upon request and
good cause shown. (pp. 2-5)

38

In Mills v. Board of Education. also previously referred to in
this chapter. one of the issues was the manner in which the children
were excluded from public education. The complaint stated that the
plaintiffs had been excluded without a formal determination of the
reason for their exclusion and without the provision for a review of
the children's status. The plaintiffs also claimed that the exclusion
from public school was contrary to the due process requirements of the
United States Constitution.

In addition to the requirement that handicapped children be
provided a free appropriate public education. the Mills judgment also
contained the following requirements:

1. That children may not be suspended from school for

disciplinary reasons for more than two days without a hearing and

provisions for educational services during the suspension must be
made.

2. That a constitutionally adequate prior hearing and periodic
review of a chilcPs status. progress. and educational placement
must be made available.

The Mills decision is particularly significant because it
applies to all handicapped children. rather than to a single category
or disability area. Other cases such as LeBanks v. Spears (1973) and
Merriken v. Cresman (1973) have also had an effect on subsequent
provisions for due process rights for handicapped children and their
parents or guardians.

Soon after the 1971 decision in the Pennsylvania Association
for Retarded Children case and the 1972 decision in Mills. provisions
for ensuring due process began to appear in state and federal statutes

and were later detailed in Federal Law 94-142.

39

WW

Willem
Public Act 18 of 1958. commonly referred to as the special
education enabling act. established intermediate school districts
within the state of Michigan. as opposed to county school districts.
Although local districts had been offered some categorical monies by
the state for establishing special education programs and services
before the passage of this legislation. this act added extra impetus
for expanding needed services. Subsidies were available only if
intermediate boards of education adopted the act by resolution and
voter approval of millage.
On March 28. 1963. Michigan Public Act 190 became effective.

Act 190 defined special education as "education of a type designed
especially for deaf. hard of hearing. blind. partially seeing. speech
defective. homebound. mentally handicapped. crippled or otherwise
physically handicapped children having behavior problems. as are
defined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction" and allowed local
school districts to contract with the intermediate boards of education
to establish centers for educating handicapped students. Section
298a (l) (h) of this act also allowed intermediate boards of education
to employ special education personnel under state reimbursement provi-
sions to serve

speech defective children. hard of hearing children who need lip

reading training. mentally retarded. physically handicapped. emo-

tionally distressed. homebound children of normal mentality and any
other atypical children if the programs are previously approved by

40

the Superintendent of Public Instruction. and if no school district
other than the intermediate district is able and willing to provide
such services.

Although PA 190 provided further impetus to the expansion of
special education programs and services. this act also became effective
only when a majority of electors within a given intermediate school
district voted to come under its provisions. There was no mandate
requiring special education programming. only legislation that permit-
ted it and provided some financial support.

In 1969 the legislature passed Public Act 200. the Handicapped
and Vocational Education Needs Study Act. This act required local and
intermediate school districts to conduct a survey of handicapped chil-
dren within their boundaries and to develop a comprehensive plan to
meet the educational needs of the handicapped. The resulting survey
and plan for meeting the needs of handicapped students was felt by a
number of organizations concerned with the welfare of the handicapped
to be inadequate. As a result. representatives of these organizations
drafted legislation and conducted an initiative petition drive and
simultaneously approached the legislature seeking enactment of this
legislation for the provision of special education programs and serv-
ices.

In December 1971. the Michigan Mandatory Special Education Act
(PA 198) was passed. This act established the right of all handicapped
persons aged 0 through 25 years of age to receive a public education
designed to develop theirinaximum potential. Drawing heavily from the

due process procedures in the PARC case. rules were promulgated.

41

becoming effective in October 1973. These rules provided the parent of
a handicapped student (or the student. if over 18. or his or her guard-
ian). the right to a due process hearing if they did not agree with the
recommendations of the Educational Planning and Placement Committee
(EPPC). It should be noted that. originally. these rules allowed only
the parent (or student or guardian. if appropriate) the right to
request a hearing based on a disagreement with the EPPC's recommen-
dation.

In August 1980. the rules for implementing the mandatory
special education act (now PA 451) were revised to bring the Michigan
regulatory language more in line with the requirements of the federal
regulations for Public Law 94-142. What Michigan previously termed the
Educational Planning and Placement Committee was now called the Indi-
vidualized Educational Planning Committee (IEPC). which was responsible
for developing an individualized education program (IEP) for each
handicapped student. also required by PL 94-142.

This revision of Michigan's rules also made the due process
requirements consistent with those in the federal legislation. Under
this revision the decision of the IEPC was binding. Rule 340.1724 now
permitted either "a parent or a public educational agency" to invoke
the hearing process if and when it was felt that it was in the best
interest of the child. An example would be when the school felt that a
particular child should be evaluated for possible placement in special

education. but the parents would not even allow the evaluation to

42

occur; A hearing could now be initiated by either party whenever a
public agency

1. Proposes to initiate or change the identification. evalua-
tion. special education program. educational placement of the per-
son. or the provision of special education programs and services
designed to develop the maximum potential of the handicapped
person.

2. Refuses to initiate or change the identification.
evaluation. special education program. educational placement of the
person. or the provisions of special education programs and
services designed to develop the maximum potential of the
handicapped person. (Rule 340.1723a [1])

It is this wording in the special education rules that is currently in

effect in Michigan.

Wimp
Following the 1971 PARC decision and the 1972 Mills decision.

the federal role in the education of handicapped students was expanded.
Public Law 93-380. the Education Amendments of 1974. mandated that if a
state wanted to retain its eligibility to receive federal funds to
educate the handicapped. a plan must be developed and approved by the
U.S. Commissioner of Education that will

(13) provide procedures for insuring that handicapped children and
their parents or guardians are guaranteed procedural safeguards in
decisions regarding identification. evaluation and educational
placement of handicapped children including. but not limited to
(a) (1) prior notice to parents or guardians of the child when the
local or State educational agency proposes to change the educa-
tional placement of the child. (ii) an opportunity for the parents
or guardians to obtain an impartial due process hearing. examine
all relevant records with respect to the classification or educa-
tional placement of the child. (iii) procedures to protect the
rights of the child when the parents or guardians are not known.
unavailable. or the child is a ward of the State including the
assignment of an individual (not to be an employee of the State or
local educational agency involved in the education or care of
children) to act as a surrogate for the parents or guardians. and

43

(iv) provision to insure that the decisions rendered in the impar-
tial due process hearing required by this paragraph shall be bind-
ing on all parties subject only to appropriate administrative or
judicial appeal. (Public Law 93-380. Title VIB. Sec. 612[d] [13A])
Public Law 93-380 also contained another key section closely
related to due process. and that is the requirement that handicapped
children be placed in the least restrictive alternative setting for
educational purposes. Specifically. the law requires that states adopt
(B) procedures to insure that. to the maximum extent appropriate.
handicapped children. including children in public or private
institutions or other care facilities. are educated with children
who are not handicapped. and that special classes. separate
schooling. or other removal of handicapped children from the
regular education environment occurs only when the nature or
severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes
with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily. (Public Law 93-380. Title VIB. Sec. 612[d] [13B])
After Public Law 93-380 was passed in 1974. Public Law 94-142.
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. emerged.
Because of the amount of effort needed to implement this law. schools
were given a full two years (from enactment in November 1975 to October
1977) to meet the requirements it contained. Rules and regulations
governing the implementation of this act were published in the Eedenal
.Bfigifiian on August 23. 1977. and took effect on October 1. 1977.
Subpart E of the rules and regulations for implementing Public
Law 94-142 is entitled "Procedural Safeguards."iand it is in this
section that due process procedures are described. These rules and
regulations allow either a parent or a public educational agency to
initiate a hearing on any matter pertaining to the (l) identification.

(2) evaluation. (3) placement. or (4) provision of a free appropriate

public education.

44

Section 300a.507 of the regulations for implementing Public Law
94-142 describes the impartial hearing officer in terms of those not
eligible:

(a) A hearing may not be conducted:

(1) By a person who is an employee of a public agency which is
involved in the education or care of the child. or

(2) By any person having a personal or professional interest which
would conflict with his or her objectivity in the hearing.

This same section of rules and regulations also states that:

(b) A person who otherwise qualifies to conduct a hearing under
paragraph (a) of this section is not an employee of the agency
solely because he or she is paid by the agency to serve as a
hearing officer.

(c) Each public agency shall keep a list of the persons who serve
as hearing officers. The list must include a statement of the
qualifications of each of those persons.

The rights any party to a hearing has are outlined in section 300a.508
as follows:

(a) Any party to a hearing has the right to:

(1) Be accompanied and advised by counsel and by individuals with
special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of
handicapped children:

(2) Present evidence and confront. cross-examine. and compel the
attendance of witnesses:

(3) Prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that
has not been disclosed to that party at least five days before the
hearing;

(4) Obtain a written or electronic verbatim record of the hearing;
(5) Obtain written findings of fact and decisions. (The public
agency shall transmit those findings and decisions. after deleting
any personally identifiable information. to the State advisory
panel established under Subpart F).

(b) Parents involved in hearings must be given the right to:

(1) Have the child who is the subject of the hearing present; and
(2) Open the hearing to the public.

Regulations also allow either party to the initial hearing to appeal
the decision rendered. The appeal process is covered in section

300a.510 of the regulations and reads as follows:

45

(a) If the hearing is conducted by a public agency other than the
State educational agency. any party aggrieved by the findings and
decision in the hearing may appeal to the State educational agency.
(b) If there is an appeal. the State educational agency shall
conduct an impartial review of the hearing. 'The official
conducting the review shall:

(1) Examine the entire hearing record;

(2) Insure that the procedures at the hearing were consistent with
the requirements of due process;

(3) Seek additional evidence if necessary. If a hearing is held to
receive additional evidence. the rights in §121a.508 apply:

(4) Afford the parties an opportunity for oral or written argument.
or both. at the discretion of the reviewing official:

(5) Make an independent decision on completion of the review; and
(6) Give a copy of written findings and the decision to the par-
ties.

(c) The decision made by the reviewing official is final. unless a
party brings a civil action under §300a.512.

It was made very clear in the rules and regulations for the
implementation of Public Law 94-142 that the right to a due process
hearing was a guaranteed right to assure that the educational needs of
handicapped children were actually met.

The final important piece of federal legislation is Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. oftentimes called the civil rights
act for the handicapped. This section states that:

No otherwise qualified handicapped individual . . . shall. solely
by reason of his handicap. be excluded from the participation in.
be denied the benefits of. or be subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Subpart D of Section 504 applies to preschool. elementary.
secondary. and adult education programs that receive or benefit from
federal financial assistance for the operation of their programs. and
includes the following:

1. Requires that recipients operating public education programs

provide a free appropriate education to each qualified handi-
capped child in the most normal setting appropriate.

46

2. Sets forth evaluation requirements designed to insure the
proper classification and placement of handicapped children.

3. Sets forth due process procedures for resolving disputes over
placement of students.

4. A recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary
education program shall annually:

(a) Undertake to identify and locate every qualified handi-
capped person residing in the recipient's jurisdiction
who is not receiving a public education.

(b) Take appropriate steps to notify handicapped persons
and their parents or guardians of the recipient's duty
under this subpart.

This legislation called for drastic changes in the attitudes
and actions of individuals and institutions who received federal funds.
Failure to comply with this regulation could result in suspension or
termination of all federal financial assistance. whereas noncompliance
with Public Law 94-142 endangers only the monies allocated under that
law.

One of the first court decisions based on Section 504 was
Hairston v. Drosick (1976). in which the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia simply stated what the law

requires:

The exclusion of a minimally handicapped child from a regular
public classroom situation without a bonafide educational reason is
in violation of Title V of Public Law 94-112. "The Rehabilitation
Act of 1973." 29 U.S.C. 794. The federal statute prescribes dis-
crimination against handicapped individuals in any program receiv-
ing federal financial assistance. To deny to a handicapped child
access to a regular public school classroom in receipt of federal
financial assistance without compelling educational justification
constitutes discrimination and a denial of the benefits of such
program in violation of the statute. School officials must make
every effort to include such children within the regular public
classroom situation. even at great expense to the school system.
(423 F. Supp. 180 (1976). p. 184)

Federal legislation over the last ten years has indeed had a

tremendous effect on the education of handicapped individuals. School

47

districts have oftentimes had to undergo major changes in order to even
attempt to meet the mandates. Although the road to compliance with
these mandates has been and continues to be a rocky one. there can be
no doubt that handicapped students are receiving a much more approp-

riate education because of legislated requirements.

W
W

As part of a Michigan Institute on Special Education Hearing
Procedures. held in January 1976. the Institute Director presented the
results of a survey conducted of 52 intermediate school district direc-
tors of special education. requesting information relative to due
process hearings. The results of this survey indicated that the 52
intermediate school districts had held a total of 24 hearings. There
had also been a total of 31 hearings held by local school districts
within the 52 intermediate school districts.

This survey. contained in the final report of the 1976 Insti-
tute on Special Education Hearing Procedures. sponsored by the Michigan
Department of Education. generated the following information relative
to persons serving as hearing officers. Superintendents had served as
hearing officers more than anyone else. having served in ten different
hearings. Attorneys had presided over seven hearings. and directors of
special education held five hearings. College professors served as a
hearing officer in only three cases. In one case the hearing officer
was a dentist. Other persons holding only one hearing were a super-

visor of special education and a general education person. One of the

48

areas determined to be a problem by this survey was the lack of any
formal training procedures for persons serving as hearing officers.
At this same institute. the supervisor of the Compliance.
Approval. and Monitoring Section of the Michigan Special Education
Services area. State Department of Education. presented information
relative to hearings held at the state level. The 14 state hearings

reported contained the following issues:

Number of

Hearing Issues Hearings
Level of Retardation (trainable v. educable) 5
Private v. Public School Program 3
Severely Mentally v. Severely Multiply Impaired 2
Emotionally Impaired v. Regular Education 1
Quality and Sufficiency of Program 2
Institution v. Public School Placement l

The following decisions were rendered in the above-mentioned state

hearings:
Supported parents' position 6
Supported school position 6
Incorporated both positions 2

It was also reported that hearings seemed to be moving from the
issue of classification (identification) to the area of appropriate
programming. Also noted was that in many cases parents and their
representatives were more knowledgeable about the rules and hearing
procedures than were the directors of special education and other
administrative personnel.

A study by Mange and Henley (1983) reviewed cost data for 40

hearings reported to the Michigan Department of Education and held

49

between September 1. 1980. and August 31. 1981. Although not directly
related to the major purpose of this study. some nonfinancial informa-
tion was collected which provides additional insight into the hearings
studied. The most frequent issue found was that of placement. The
most frequent disability area was emotional impairment. although it was
emphasized that "no conclusions or generalizations are warranted by
these data" (p. 7). The most frequent ages of those students for whom
the hearings were held were between 10 and 16 years. The mean length
of hearings was 6.7 hours. with a range from 3 to 14.5 hours.

Another area included in this study was the identification of
spokespersons for both the schools and parents. Attorneys were used
far more by the schools. and parents most often represented themselves.
In every case in which the parent was represented by an attorney. the
school was also. In five cases in which the school used an attorney as
a spokesperson. the parents used someone else.

This study found that 75% of the initial hearing decisions were
in support of the school. and 46% of those decisions were appealed to
the state for review. The state review supported the parents in 31% of

the cases and the schools in 69%.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY

IDIIQQUQIIQD

The purposes of this study were to (1) identify issues around
which hearings were centered for the four years included in the study.
(2) identify the representatives of both the school district and the
parents in these hearings. (3) identify and analyze the decisions
rendered at both the local- and state-level hearings. (4) describe the
training process provided to hearing officers and the occupations of
those persons serving as hearing officers. and (5) identify any changes
in the content and format of written hearing officer reports over the
four-year period.

To achieve the first three purposes of this study. appropriate
questions were included in two separate forms. The first form.
entitled "Model for Report of the Local Hearing Officer" (Appendix A).
included questions relative to local hearings and the student for whom
the hearing was being held. The second form. entitled "Report of the
State Hearing Officer" (Appendix 8). included questions such as who
appealed the local hearing officer's decision and what party was
favored in the decision rendered by the state hearing officer.

The fourth purpose of this study was achieved by obtaining

information from the State Department of Education relative to various

50

51

hearing officer training institutes provided by the Special Education
Services Area. and by compiling information received by the State
Department on local hearings that had been held throughout the state.
The fifth purpose of this study was to describe any changes in the
content and format of local hearing officer reports over time. 'This
was achieved by reviewing each of the 140 local hearing officer reports
individually and by year and by noting any changes in the content or
format of the reports as determined by this writer. The results are

reported in narrative form.

WWW

To tabulate issues around which local hearings were held.
representation of both the school district and the parents in all local
hearings. and decisions rendered at both the local and state levels.
the "Model for Report of the Local Hearing Officer" and "Report of the
State Hearing Officer" forms were developed by the writer. in coopera-
tion with members of the Compliance. Approval. and Monitoring section
of the Special Education Services Area within the Michigan Department
of Education. In addition to providing information needed for this
study. the continued use of these forms would also provide the Special
Education Services Area with a process of obtaining more in-depth
information relative to both local- and state-level hearings. for
further analysis by the State Department.

The "Model for Report of the Local Hearing Officer" form was
initially completed by this writer for 130 of the 140 local hearings

held over the four-year span included in this study. Each local

52

hearing officer report was reviewed individually. and a local hearing
officer form was completed by this writer. ‘These 130 forms were
completed by the writer because the local hearing officer form was not
in use by local hearing officers at the time the hearings were
completed.

To maintain consistency with the other 130 local hearing
officer reports reviewed and forms completed by this writer. the ten
local hearing officer reports for which the "Model for Report of the
Local Hearing Officer" had been completed were reviewed independently
by this writer. The ten already completed local hearing officer forms
were then reviewed also. When. in the opinion of this writer. based on
a review of the local hearing officer report. a change on the already
completed local hearing officer form was required to maintain consis-
tency with the other 130 forms completed by this writer. the change was
made on the already completed form. The only changes made on the
already completed "Model for Report of the Local Hearing Officer" forms
were on the issues section (Questions 2 through 5). and this occurred
on five of the forms.

In the process of reviewing the hearings. it became evident
that in addition to "(1) supports parent/student position."

"(2) supports school district position." and "(3) incorporates both
positions."1a fourth option would have to be added to the possible
outcome of the local hearing officer's decision. entitled "independent
decision)‘ This would identify those decisions that did not incorpo-

rate the position of either party.

53

Information contained within these 140 completed forms provided
the data necessary for the tabular presentations relative to the first
three purposes of this study. Issues around which hearings were
centered (Purpose 1) were tabulated according to the following four
hearable issues as stated within PL 94-142:

1. Identification

2. Evaluation

3. Placement

4. Free appropriate public education

Data pertaining to parent and school district representation at
local hearings were tabulated in the following categories:

Parent Representation

1. Attorney

2. Advocate

3. Self

4. Not present or represented

School District Representation

T. Attorney

2. Superintendent

3. Director of special education

4. Other

Local hearing decisions (the first part of Purpose 3) were
tabulated in the following four areas:

1. Supports parent/student position

2. Supports school district position

54

3. Incorporates both positions

4. Independent position

Data pertaining to state hearing appeal decisions (the second
part of Purpose 3) were obtained by individually reviewing all state
hearing officer reports for those 74 local-level hearings that were
appealed for a state hearing review. and completing a "Report of the
State Hearing Officer" form. 'The reports were reviewed by the writer.
and a separate form was completed for each of the 74 hearing reviews.
As was the case with local hearing decisions. a fourth option entitled
"independent decision" had to be added for state-level decisions also.
These data were tabulated in the following four categories:

1. Supported parent/student position

2. Supported school district position

3. Incorporated both positions

4. Independent decision

The results of the data tabulated for the first three purposes
of this study are presented in Chapter IV. All information is
presented separately for each of the four years included in this study.
Results are first presented in the form of tables and are followed by a
descriptive narrative analysis of the data.

To provide more in-depth information on local hearings. all 140
local hearing officer reports were separated first by year and then by
disability area. Each report was then reread by the writer. and the

following information was compiled in a columnar format:

55

1. Hearing number and date (by disability and year)

2. Issue(s)

3. School position

4. Parent position

5. Local hearing officer decision

6. Whether or not the local decision was appealed

The areas of issue(s). position of both parties. and local
decision were presented in brief narrative form. thereby providing a
much better perspective of each individual hearing. by year and
disability. For the 74 local hearings that were appealed. a brief
narrative describing the results of the state hearing officerks
decision was added. For those hearings that were appealed and the
state hearing officer either modified or reversed the local hearing
officer's decision. or hearings that required an explanation beyond
what could be presented in the brief narrative within the columnar
form. a more expanded narrative presentation was made.

The fourth purpose of this study was to identify and describe
the hearing officer training process developed within Michigan and to
identify the occupations of those persons serving as hearing officers.
This purpose was achieved. in part. by obtaining from the Michigan
Department of Education. information relative to various hearing
officer training institutes provided by the Special Education Services
Area. This information was reviewed and then reported in narrative
form. In most local hearing officer reports the "title" or occupation

of the hearing officer was included. FCr these hearings in which the

S6

occupation of the local hearing officer could not be determined. a
telephone call was made to the special education department of the
school district involved in the hearing. requesting the occupation of
the local hearing officer. The occupation of all local hearing offi-
cers was obtained.

Information on local hearing officer names. occupation. and
number of hearings held was then compiled for each of the four years
included in this study. The occupation of hearing officers was then
broken down into the following categories:

1. University professor

2. Director of special education

3. Superintendent

4. Attorney

5. Intermediate school district planner

6. Special education principal

7. Learning disabilities consultant

8. Center or clinic director

9. Juvenile court case supervisor

This procedure allowed the writer to determine on a yearly
basis the number and percentage of hearings held by persons within each
occupation. as well as the number of different hearing officers con-
ducting local-level hearings. These data are presented in Table 22.
entitled Hearing Officer Occupations. Number of Hearing Officers. and

Number of Hearings Conducted: 1977-1980.

S7

The fifth purpose of this study was to describe major changes
in the content and format of local hearing officer reports. over time.
By reviewing each of the 140 local hearing officer reports individually
and by year. any changes in the quality of the content or format of the
reports. as determined by the writer. were noted. ‘The results are

reported in narrative form.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Intmductmn

This chapter provides a presentation and discussion of the
data. The first part of the chapter contains a description of the
school districts and students involved in the 140 hearings reviewed.
This is followed by information relative to the issues. positions of
both parties. and decisions rendered for all 140 hearings included in
this study. This is presented in columnar form and is broken down by
disability area and year.

Following each yearly columnar presentation of issues.
positions of the parties. and decisions. is a descriptive narrative of
each local hearing that was appealed that year where the state hearing
officer either modified or reversed the local hearing officer's deci-
sion. Also included in this narrative section are any hearings during
that year that require more explanation than could be provided in the
limited space on the columnar form. Since not all hearings reviewed
are included in the narrative section. the numbering of hearings in
that section is not sequential.

Following the narrative comments section for each year is an
overview of the issues. parent and school district representation. and

decisions for that specific year. This includes both narrative

58

59

comments and tables. Following the overview of issues. representation.
and decisions for 1980 is a four-year summary of issues. parent and
school district representation. and local- and state-level hearing
decisions. This four-year summary is also presented in narrative and
tabular form. This is followed by tables and narrative information
relative to hearing officer occupation. training. and selection. The
chapter concludes with a narrative description of the changes in the
content and format of local hearing officer reports between October 1.

1977. and December 31. 1980.

WW9:
Of the 140 hearings received by the State Department of Educa-

tion. Special Education Services Area. and held between October 1.
1977. and December 31. 1980. a total of 110 were held within 65 differ-
ent local school districts. These local districts included small rural
schools with a total school population of less than 400. to middle city
schools and urban metropolitan districts with a school population in
excess of 200.000 students. All areas of Michigan were involved.

including the Upper Peninsula.

WW
One hundred eight (77%) of the students involved in the 140

local hearings were male. and 32 (23%) were female. Sixty-seven (48%)
of the students ranged in age from 6 to 12 years. Forty-six (33%) of
thestudents were 13 to 18 years of age. Ten students (7%) were 5 years

of age or younger. and seven students (5%) were between the ages of 18

60

and 26 years. In 10 (7%) of the hearings. the age of the student was

not included in the hearing officer report.

The actual or suspected disability areas of the students

included the following:

Emotionally Impaired (EI)

Learning Disabled (LD)

Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI)

Trainable Mentally Impaired (TMI)

Severely Mentally Impaired (SMI)

Severely Multiply Impaired (SXI)

Physically or Otherwise Health Impaired (POHI)
Visually Impaired (VI)

Hearing Impaired (HI)

Speech and Language Impaired (S/L)

61

COLUMNAR PRESENTATION OF
ISSUES. POSITIONS. AND

DECISIONS--1977

(52

.co_uuoo 0>_uoccac c. cove—uc_e

 

.m~ .w ec_Leo; cu
oc_c_aucoa co_uw6co~c_
ocoe Lo» co_uuom o>_uuc
-Lac com .uc__n 0;” Lee
.oogum ene_;u.z one as
ccauOC v_:o:n acovaum
0;» ..oogua ozu voco>nu

.ocwcmocu

.uco_uouo> u “coeunsavo
.oc0ncon coy coo: ecu

co noun—n :o_~:0uao _o_u
ionn su_: .nvouc o>.~uuw&o
u .couOEOcu>mn .o>.u
-_cmou use woos o. :co.n
.nco_uouavo vowwmmcuucm:
:- voumonaoL >och .aucoe
-05.:ooc .mmo. osu yous
“as“ nou_>con vcw mEocmoLn
.oco_ueu:vo ou “cm—c ogu
vo.cou coon no: can L_ogk

.vovcoEEOOoc no: vc__n

use Lee .oogum eee.:e_:
ecu an ucquuo_e .ucovaum
ee._e eoL.nas_ >2228......
n_:u mo muons oz» “owe you
__.x uu_cu._e .ooee. o...e
unaccuc_ Lo\uco .ooo. use
an vacuuco mou.>cou och

.mou_>cou

.0 Essa—«:09 .uc..n

ecu co» .oocom can
-.;u_x use .n euoo.e on
v.:ozu “covaua >cwvco
-uon on» yo: .0 coguozx
a .ucoeouo.e .oco_uou
nave Co unocuuw.cn0cna<

o_\_—
«n

 

cono_uou u.cou_emo
mchnos .muO. u_u;o=

.peupnmo; cumum

u.._uoam o c_:u_3 aces
noun-n cob at»: no: co_u
-auchEOCOC < .>L~muouoc
ace} mu_umocmo_v .ncomu
..uve .omnu ecu we may:
-nao.Lum on» Co onaouom
._oo;un oz» cuco>uu

.ouo_ca05nao no:
co_uau_umc_ co c. “avenue—a
one“ xe.z. .oe ewe use .EO.
iaoLa pace—«060 co no; can
c_o;u «any vacuum mucosa;

.mc_uu0m _ou.a

ion: a c_;._3 ecu; none—o

a :. Am>ov on “moo. new
we.“ we uo_coe concouxo co
co. vo>comao on on ucovaun
,o:» co» >Louooooc on v.30:
a. .mc_EEocuoCa vuo.caoLano
unsung» co>o or .mu_u
-mOcmo_c Ensues» voucwccmz
onau m_;u Co >u_co>0m oz»

.ce_uoa.o>u so» _ou_a
-mo: away» a c. noun—a
on u.aogn acouaua >Cou

-cOOOn w yo: Lo Congas:

a .ucueouo_a .oco_uao

-auo uo «mucous—cn6cn9<

o_\~.
N

 

._m .w Lo»
comuoon o>_umccoc oom
.mucona oz» ceco>mu

.co_uou:co .q_uonm
>coumvcce cove: vec_:ooc
mm mucecanOU u_Eoccuu

a ..occ_u060 ..o_u6n oz“
mommoano .005um 0;“ >5
unucoEEOuo. no EnemoLa
on» ._oozun oz“ coco>nu

.v__;u L_ozu .0

neon: .mco_uoeo e:- _~_00n
on» you: 90: cut EwenoLn
.eco_u-o:vo coco—nun on»

.noo_>cun
xcor .a_00m .003un vco “>wv
on» ‘0 “Lee Lee ov_o >comw>

-coaau a “50°C oz» c_zu_3
ov_o_oco_uuacumcn cw “mucus
-oL_:eoL co_umu:vo .ou_m>ca

a ._oco_uouo> ._oco_uauo>

nucn anus cu aco.unuwan
noumw_u co_uooavo .ococom
"_u :. vo>ocaam cozumou

a :u_x eooL ouL96noL a we.
-t:_u:_ .mvooc n_g :0 women
Eocooca .oco_uou:uo can

-.Laotann cw cu.) acuvsum

ocu cocm>oCa no: .ooxum

.nou_>con Co
ease—ucOu .ucocsun
>caec090u any »0 nova:
oz“ __o uc_uoos no:
.023 05 «o: co c052.)
a .ucoeoun_n .oco.uou
-avo we neocouo_caoLan<

anxo.
«—

 

comnmueo ozm

 

 

02 mo»
vu_uonn<

 

eo_nnuoa ex;

co_u_voa acoLoa

 

 

co.u_uoa .oocum

 

 

uc.cnoz

 

v2.2.6. 5.26325
usa—

€53

 

cocuoou
mc_tooc _o_vo5oc .u

LoxL91_o.uOm_oozum .a

a; cob
acou_:mc0u cozuoou .o
"moum>Loo
“cocoon mc_:o._ou ozu
o>_ouoc can voc_one.
>__ocomuOEo may no»
Eoocmmo_u o c. vouo_a
on u_:ocn “covey“ oz»
.co_nom_o mc_ccoo_

monoumccog>coccoooa o
:3: 69.39.; I .26:

noeo yo nou_vco; scoe

-_Ca.o no: “covey“ ogh

N

._oozon oz“ vocosou

.eooc

ou»:0moc on“ c. coco—a on
no: v—aocm nco vo_non_c ac.
accoo_ co vocnoae_ >__oco_u
-oeo “o: a. u_.:u L_osw

._oLuc0u-u_om a acoeunaavo
co.>ozoc >5 vouou_v:_ no
nommo.uco_:mocouc_ co_uoco
-ouc_ cum: m.mon o:.~-..:c
o no see. ouL:OmoL ozu c.
coon—a on c.aozm a no_no
-n_o mc.ccoo_ can voc.one_
>__oco_uoeo n_ aco_uoa
-.o>o .ou_ao_o;u>nn ozu ea
oc.ucouuo a EOOCSmo_u ozu
c. amouoLn uc_ccoo_ ozu ea
o>_uaacn_v n. acouauo one

.600.

ou530moc o cm coon—a
vco .vo_nom_v ocmccoo_
Co voc_oos_ >__ocowuoeo
no vo_unucou_ on u_:ocm
“covaum >Loucoeo_o

co “o: co cocoon) .ucoe
-ouo_a a co_uou_u_ucov.

~—\__

 

.ocov on

v_:o;m co_»oa_o>o o>_n

-cogoLnEOO ouo_anO <
.co_uoa_o>o o>_mcog
cocaEOO yo: no: ococu
omaoooa soocmno_u
Lo_:ooL oz“ :_ xuoa
coon—a on one... .533
.o>_mco;oca£ou

“0: m_ can acovco
ammo co~>ocon >co >b_
-uonn uoc moo“. “canoe
”ounmo_o;u>ma on»
.comum:_o>o

Loxcoz _c_00m ”cecun
o goo:u_: uovcoe
ascooc no: “cosouo—a

.nucocon ozu voLo>om

.nucocaun

Locuo ocu EOLC u~_no; can
uc_L_:cuo mo: 0; uco .Eocw
-oca .u ozu c. couo.a no:
new c_ozu ouc_m unocmoLn
u_Eovouo o: coon no: ocozh

.Lo.>o;oa o>_nnocmmo

a .>u___nmuuocun.v .conn
co_ucouuo usage a 0cm
sumocco mo >uw._a_nnon ozu
oucogco v.30) EocuoLn .m
on“ c. aco6ouo.a coacuucou

.uocmons_
>—_oco.uoeo oz“ no» see»

name—u o c. noun—a c_oEoL

v_:onmucov:uno:uuocco

Locuoxz .uconuo_n_oco_u

-ouavo uo 323239.93

o_\o_
a

 

eemamuoe ozm

 

 

6: no>
uo_ooaa<r

 

co_n_uoo oz;

 

c0336.. ucocou

 

ee_u_.ea .eogom

 

oann.

 

.02
mc_coo:

 

v2.09... 3.28306...
usa.

611

.co_uuon o>_uoCLoc c. voca.uc_«

 

.Nu .m .6

co_uoco_axo cogucac Lo;
mucoEEOO o>_uoccoc oom
.osoc o5 50.: 55.3“. ac.
-e_.se n e. ._ a. eases.
co>o .Eocooca mo_v:um
coumaavo ogu cm coon—n
.on v_:o;m “conga“ oz»
._oocum ocu voco>om

.oEOs uo oucoum_u

ee_x_ez e_;u_: ._ £0.23
._oo:um ucoCLao «.5 :—
c_oeoc upaocn “covaum och

.mou_>cou acou.ancou
Loguoou >_co no.3 acoEouo_a
co_uou:co .ococom acoc

-cau use coca ucoEcoL_>co
oc_cLoo_ nevum_mcoo ocoe o
oc_>0ca cco co_uo~__o:v.>
-mcc_ Louoocu Lo» xo__o
v.30: EocmoLn voc_oucoC
-u_om n.5h .mvcouuo >_uco
unoco “covaun osu oco ozu
:2» Congo 39.3 can; u 5
concoc— :EocmoLa montage
tonne-no: co c. uo__oC

-co on v_:ocm acovsun on»

sucocaum >Co

-ucOoon m_zu Lo» voucoc
new: use; 505‘ cosuco»
.oozum a c. acoEouo_a
a. .ucosouo_a .oco_uou
unto we unocouo_cn0caa<

N-\o_
on

 

.m_moa xoo:-o-ou_3u Co
3.30: o co mucocoa vco
“coca: o5 2 coo—>9...
on wnocozu cco mc_.om
-caou «may noccoeeouox .c
.o_nmmmon
co>ococz comocaouco
on c.905m mommo.u Lo.
-amoL can. co.umcmoac. .m
.vot~>oCa oa c.:o;m
Dena—:chC o; co
EOE» mou_>com aconaam .~
.omo a”; mucov
-aum s~_x on v.30o o;
oLocx Goo» :mowcnum
nouns-cm: co 3 coccau
-oc on u_:ozn ucovaum .—
.mucocnn oz“ voco>ou

.oum_caoLanmcw
a. EocmoLn ucoeuoocu >ov
oxu c~ acoeooo_a toac_uc0u

.u_c__u cameo: .oucoe o
cm vom30z EoLooCa Loucou
ucosuoocu >ov o c. noun—n
c_osoc v.50£n unoccum och

.o_c_.u su_oos .oucoe o
c. vomao; EQCmOCa acoe
-uoocu >ov o cm cmoEoc

u_:o:m acovauo >Cotco

-uom ozu uoc Lo Cocuozz

new .ucoeouo_a .ocowuou

-auo we unocoaw.cn0cna<

Loaouuo
o

 

comm_uoo 01m

 

 

02 mo»
co_oona<

eo_._eoo 0:5

 

 

5.23.. “cos.—

 

CO— u — no; —OO£UW

 

oaun.

 

.oz
mcncooz

 

$0.23.... 3.30226
sum.

.co_uuom o>_uwccoc c. uov:.uc.«

 

.ueE on e.aou M_N_.osM
o_nc cmcunz encouwco
__o “o: “as“ c~
-mooo n.coumceo ac,
-coo; .ouO. oz. u.oza:

.nouo_ucoun

-aan coon yo: cos .c;

*0 co_umcmuoc .m_n..Oan
o_:¢ Co v vco a o_cou_cu
. .mou_>Lom co.uou
-avo .o_uoam >co co» >u.
..mac “0: mooc ocouocosu
can .uo_nom_u oc.ccoo.
no co_uocm_nou so»
o_Lou_cu ox“ __o uooE
no: noon “cocaum on»
._oo:om ocu voco>ou

.uco

-u.:nc09 cozuoou 94 co co
nou_>con ocu noc.:coc ago
04 a. v__£o L_osu awn»

.noo_>Lom co.uou:vo
.o_uoan Com o_n_u_.o
go: ocooocosu no: new
.vo.aou_v mc_:coo_ no
>:33. Dec e_e aeoeeum

.uo_ao

-a_v mc_ccoo_ we co_umc
-_uov ozu nuooe “covaun
gm.£-co_csm o no: .0
Lozuosz .co_uoo_»_ucov_

:_\N.
N

 

65

._§ a; co

comuoscoucm Locucau Lou
co_uuom o>_uoccoc oem
.noo~>com a; own—LnoLnao
Lo» om. co <m4 Lozuoco
:u_3 uuocucou “use uu_c~
-n_v .090. on“ L0 .uu_cu
-mmv .oocOm .ooo_ oz“

>n cot—>0Ln on anus ucoe
-ouo_n .ocomuounvo conch;
.nucocon onu voco>ou

.Emcmoca >um__oo
-ouc mcnccoo_ o c. noun—a
on 3:93 3...... :05 “2:.

.nooco goo-nan c.
.oco_unouoLoocon a sec;
oucoum_mna uco .ucou_an

-cOu Losooou o; .Locuoou
mc_uooc _o_uoeoc ozu sec;
mou_>con o>mucoanam can:
co_uou:uo .ococom c_ .0
eoLmOLQ .zu >Loucoso_o co
cm vouo.n on c_=ou “covaum

pone

o>os no: mooo uu_cam_v
.ooo. on“ u. co>o .260.
-umo_u a; an e. noun—a
on a; no vomemucoo_
“covaum >coucoEo_o co
one: .ucOEouo_n .oco_uou
-avo co unocouo_cnoEna<

ax.—

«-

 

 

oz mo>
vo_oonn<

 

eo_._uee ex;

 

 

co.»_noa “coco;

 

co_u.noc .oozom

 

 

.oz

o:_coox

 

vo_aon_o oc_ccoo4
“Na.

663

 

.>._eec

vcm ucovaum oz“ com
nouo_u_c_ on moum>con
ace: .omCOn .oozom

.ouo_caoLnao

cos: co_uou:vo .cco
-cou one. vouocoouc_
on e_=o;. scenes. as»

.mommo_u

unsovouo co; Co
co_ucoa Lemme ox“ Lo»
EoLmoCn .zu on» c.
c_oeoc “covaum on»

._oucoe_cuon on
v.30) comuouauo _o_
-uoam 60L» t..zu ocu
oc_>06oc >_ouo.n60u

._zu we >.L__eme._o
so; macoEoLmaaoc ocu
woos noov acovaum on»

M

.coLv__zu .oecoc cu_z
noun—n mc_on oucov_ucoO
-w_on ocoe o>oc v.30:

ocm ocosz .ovoLu occuom ou
voccauoc on c_:o;m vco ucoe

.nvooc Lo: nuooe anon
u. onaouoa ucoeoum.n Eoco

.u__:u v.0

-Loo>-~_ o can acoeouo_n
co_uoo:uo _o_oonn

manco> ucoeouo_a co_uou

 

 

-ouo_a .zu “coccau Co; cm once .2» unoccau on“ cw iavo .ococoo .ucoeouo.n axo—
x ._oo:um on“ voco>ou vomco..ocu no: a. v__:u oz» c_oEoc v.3onn aconaum oz» .oco_uouauo ouo_cnoLnn< _
mo .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

voc_one_ >._oucot o_noo:vm
hum»

67

.co_uuon o>_uoccoc :— uov:.uc.«

 

.N\ .x» Co
co_uoco—nxo cozacau Lou
co_uooo o>.uoccoc oon

.coucou acoeuoocu
>ov on. c. ucoEoua_a

xa vo>com on unoa

v.30: “covaum oz» .~

.ucoec_ooe_

.oucos ac.u:_uc_

.nucoee_ooe_ >Co

-vcouou oco ocosu use

.uoc_ooe_ >_.oco.uoeo

mo voaocw_mov on
v.30zm acovaum n.3h .—

._oocue oz“ voco>ou

.EocaoCa .zp

Q on coacauoc on c_=ozm
v__zo C_o:a vco .ouo
-_LaoLauo no: a. EocmoCa
coucou acoeuoocu >ov och

.ucoeouo.a
ouo.caoLano “no: on» a.
coucou acosuoocu >99 on»

.coucou acoE
-uoocu >09 :u_oo; .oucoe
a :— ucoeouo_n .oco.uou
-aoo co anocouo_co05nn<

concuuo
«N

 

.EocaoCn .ouo. o

:— “cocoon—n oewuu._:m
Lov.mcoO ou coo> .oosuu
oc_xo__o~ o:« 56‘ coco>
£333 33 gnaw 3o: <

.noaoacan concou.

- .23... Lee .609. 3.30:.
.oocun coaccooxmmoc ocu
vcouuo 0“ no: “cocoon
on, >ee c.ng Cuzco oz»
.Aho vco pmv mou_>com
>Lo__muco vco u_Eovouo
cob >__LoE~Ln .n>oc u.o;
coucou .oucoqu_o>oc ox“
vcouuoou no: “coca: o5
.Aazucoe x.mv coo» .oozun
on» co Cove—oeoc ogu can

.nco_u
-_non supp vouocoacouc_

._oozum oeo; «.5 0»

ccauoc ou voucoz vco oLocu
>naoz no: no: u_.zu on“
.coucou oz» an acoEouo_n
.o.cu xoozuooczu o Couu<
._oocun vooscoacmwoc ozu c.
c.oeoc acouaun ogu o>og o»

.ucoe
-ou~.a co_uou:vo .ococom
can see; ouC=OnoC .oocum

eeeeLoeem_ee ._g e. >_...
unmouuan co_uuc:‘ cu >u.

-__poc_ o_: a» one cocoocn

A_:m-.r»v coucoo .oucoe
ico_o>ov a c. acovnu» ocu
ova—a o“ voucoz .oogon och

.o__zu
v.0-coo>-__ co Lo» acoe
-ouo_n ouo_caoCnno “nee

2: a. .023 .6053
-gm.oc o no: .0 Cozuocz
.ucoeouo.n .oco.uoo
-auo uo unocouo_co0cac<

~\~_
.

 

co_a_uou orm

 

 

oz mo>
no.oonn<

 

eo_n_uue exd

 

co_u_m0m “coco;

 

eo_u_.oa .oegum

 

 

.02
oc.cooz

 

voc_ooe_ >._ouco: o.noc.och
sum.

68

.CO—uuun O>nulhbflc :- tug—0:7...

 

._u .xw Lo»
co_uuom o>_~oCLer oom

.COc
__.3 oEOm can .oco
-ouuoco ocwaooc _..3
oEOm .ucoan_o>ov
.__xn o>zuoocu cco
.LOuoeozu>ma ._o_oom
._oco_u02o .ooonoco_
zo>_u_cmou amoeuvo
umae vco .zm30co m.
oezu _e:e_>_uc_ zenE
)oz o:_Ecouov c.30zn
eoao_o>ee an. use

.v_.zu ozu

on mou_>com oco-0u
-oco .oavm>_vc~ o>_o
__.3 oz: «cameo: ozu
ou_>Lomc_ ou m_moz
>_xoo31_z o unno—

uo co o_za_.o>o

82. 2. 2:9: :3
-oCozu .oco_uoa:uoo
vco umzamcozu omoam
-co. uco zuoonm o Co
moum>com .o:u_>_vc.

o
N

.—

.nou_>com “con

-nam uovoo: ozu mcwvm>oCa
>.uuoc_c no: ozo: n_oco_n
unouoCa noncou__ uozh ._o_u
icouoa m.c__zu ozu o~_e_xm£
ea vocmzmon co meooc .onn.>
-22: co coaoz no: no: szu
ozu cob vocco.a EocaoLa oz»
onaouoz ocOu cozuooavu _o_u

._occomcon “Leeann .oco_n
-moboLa Co cozuuocmv ozu
cone: ov_o .oco_uu:camc.
co >z voco>__ov .>amcozu
.oco_umnauuo vco ommsoco_
vco zuooam we zuoo mouse”:

._oco_mnoeoLa concou_.
o >z toco>_.ov oz umae
noon>com oceanan we: Lo
Lozuozz .vazu .00zuo
noun 9 Lou ao>_uuomzo

 

 

.coznmuou m.Louz».o on“ -onm coo_zu_: oz» mo co_u on zu.3 .ouo_cn0cnno n_ eocuoLa vco ucoeouo_n 9.x.—
-cooz _ouo. ozu v.oza= x ._oozum ozu vocosou -o—o_> e. as: am. oz» uozb vovcossoooc no EocuoLn ozk .oco_uou:vo ouo.cn05na< «—
:o.u_uoo ozm 02 no) co_m_uoo oxz co_u_noa acoco :6 a non oozom o:««. .02

. vo_ooan< m z . _ oc_cwoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

voL_waE_ >—_ouco: >.oco>om

Rm.

OJ
Ihv

.cozuuom o>_uoccoc c. uoo:.ua.«

 

.mucocOQEOO EoLmoLa
u.z_uoam >co mc_uou
-coE >z «cosmcaa .oco_n
unoboLa :mmoao ucouom:
oz Loumeoo mc_cooz

ozu Leo ouo_LnoLcao

oz uoc v.36: u. .mczuuom
.00zum ucomOLQ ozu cm
c_oEoc can .xm no uo_o_u

.coc
-u__zo u_unuuam co» moc__
-ovzao co comoz Eocuoca o
voc_>0ca can .uzum_u:o we

.coo_umo mc_cooz ozu

eocw co_umzcoeeoOoc m on
cone no: .oonn oz» .mmmoc
-mo_v _o_ucocoocwv ou o>_u
-o_oL Eo_zoLn o no: ocozu

~eoc_>oLa oz coco—nzu
uzummuao Loo moc_.oc_am
co tomoz EocmoLa o vco
.u_um_uao\_u ou comcmzo
on >a_._e_e__o one
v.30zn Lo .xm no co_unu
-avo .ozuoan Lem o_zmm

 

 

..u .xm co. n.a0¢om.u o zu_3 .voczoae_ uco .co_uou_e_ucov_ ea
co_uoom o>_uoLLoc oom -cov. oz v_:ozm ucoosum >__oco_uoeo no co.» o>_uo_oc uamm ozu uo ovoe -__o c.o6oc z_mzu ozu m_\N_
.mucocoa oz“ eoLe>ou x ._oozum ozu voco>ou -_ucou_ oz n_aozm v_.zu oz» co_n_uov o: cooz voz ocozk v—aozw .co_uou_u_ucoo. «.
co.m.uo oz mo> co m o :0 a no “coco :0 u no u oawm .oz
. . a cam ee_noaa< z _ on ex; _ _ a a . _ a .ooz m _ eewLoo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

voL_an_ >_a_u.:x >.oto>om

sum—

7O

.co.uuon o>_uoLLoc c. uov:.uc.«

 

._\ .xoa

mo comuoco_nxo Lozucau.

Lee co_uoou o>_uoccoc oom

.uuzcummu

uc_cozzm_oc a c_ cognac—
vco .mucovaum .zoa

Lozuo oc.n:oz .oozon

ozu an «.moz _o_cu

o co u__zu oz» ._oLco

ou uozuooL no: “cocoocmo
.u_:moL o n< .mcomuno
ucoEoum.a ozu oco_nxo ea
no_ucon zuoz zom o» o_zo
no! Lou.uoo mczcooz oz»

.uu_cuu_v .60zun mc_coz
-zozo: o c. vouooo_ .oozun
Lo.ao_ucon o ou voucoa
-mcocu oz ou mvco_cc vco

.ucoan

-.o>ov u_Eocouo E:E_xoe u.e

icon v.30: zuzzx Boocmno_u
o vco .»o .»a Leo ovooc
n.ucov:an oz» to omaoooz

~uu_cum_v

.oozun :30 m_z c_zu_3
.oozuu noozcozzu_oc n.z
:- cmnfiou ucuuaum 0:“
v_:ozm co .m.moz Lo_aooc
o co >amcozu cocooc
mcmv_>ocn mo o_zo

-nou can mucocaun .10;
cozuo mc_n:oz .oonn

a c. coon—n oz ucovaum
>coucoEo_o oz» v.56zm

 

 

.nco_u .oozun oEOz n_z o>oo_ ea ones oz v_:ozn .00zou Lo. .ucoeouo_a _oco_uou M\__
x 1_mon zuoz uouoconcouc. o>oz ac: u_:ozn v__zu oz» .:u_ucon o c.zu_3 ucoeouo_¢ -avo uo «monouozcaoCnn< «—
o me .o
co_m_uoo ozm eu—moamq co_m_ooo oxz co_u_m0e acocoa co.u_moe .oozum oamu. mc_cno:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

toe—one. zu_oox on_3Lozuo Lo >__oumn>z¢

usa—

71

W
A total of 8 of the 15 hearings held during 1977 are included
in the following narrative. 'These include three hearings in which the
local hearing officer's decision was appealed and five hearings that
were not appealed but require explanation beyond what can be provided

in columnar form.

W

In this case the appropriateness of the educational placement
for a student returning to a local school district from a state
hospital was the key issue. School district representatives claimed
that even though their recommended placement in a high school resource
room "may not be ideal in all respects. it addresses itself to the
social. emotional and academic components as required under Mandatory
Special Educatiomfl The local hearing officer ruled in favor of the
school and stated that "there should be no reason why a resource room
with a teacher-pupil ratio of l to 7 and the services of an instruc-
tional aide . . . cannot be so structured to meet his individualized
needs)‘ 'The parents appealed the local decision.

The state hearing officer did not agree that the program
recommended by the school was appropriate and stated that it "could be
seen as being offered based on availability. and not appropriate
programming to meet cognitive. affective. and psychomotor needs." The
state hearing officer ruled that the student must be placed in a self-
contained emotionally impaired classroom within 30 days of receipt of

his report.

72

W

In this case the school district recommendation that the
student reapply to the Michigan School for the Blind was based on the
belief that "services that can realistically be offered at the local
and/or intermediate level will not meet the student's needs." This
recommendation was further based "upon consideration of the lack of
program base for educational services designed to meet the needs of
emotionally impaired blind secondary students."

The local hearing officer ruled that the student should return
to the Michigan School for the Blind and be provided with an IEP in
accordance with his needs. This decision was based on the following:

1. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the student
has not been provided an opportunity to reach his maximum potential
in accordance with Section 771a of P.A. 198.

2. There is a lack of students in the county with similar
needs.

3. The student has demonstrated a capacity for learning.

4. Michigan School for the Blind is legally charged with the
responsibility for providing educational programs to visually
impaired students who cannot be satisfactorily educated in the
local schools because of a lack of program base and a need for
resident controls.

It is interesting that the local hearing officer's decision was

based at least in part on the lack of similar students in the county

and lack of program options. 'The local hearing decision was not

appealed.

W

This case appears to be one in which there was a lack of clear

communication between the school and parents. based primarily on the

73

fact that the native language of the parents was not English. Although
the local hearing officer ruled in favor of the school for placement in
another building farther from home. when it was clearly explained to
the parents that transportation would be provided not only for the
student. but for them as well if the need arose. "their reluctance
and/or objection to the program became weakened."

Although the issue in this case was placement. the local
hearing officer further recommended that the student "be given a
complete medical examination and a psychiatric evaluation with brain
scan tests as the doctor or psychiatrist would determine appropriate.
It may be that this boy's problem is a medical one rather than an issue
of discipline or lack of it)‘ It was further stated in the hearing
officer's decision that "school authorities will assist the parents in
doing this and all the parents would have to do is to sign an authori-

zation."

LeaminLQisablmn

Although educational placement was the major issue in this
case. a lack of continuum of services in the local school district
precipitated the hearing. The local school district placed an identi-
fied LD student in the intermediate EMI resource program. The student
remained in this program less than one hour on the first day of school
because the mother withdrew the student from the EMI program and kept
him at home.

The only placement alternatives offered for this LD student

were an EMI program or general education placement with supportive

74

services from a remedial reading teacher. a learning disabilities
teacher consultant. and the assistance of an aide in subject areas as
needed. The parents refused either placement and requested that the
child be placed in a learning disability program. The local hearing
officer ruled in favor of the parents. and the decision was not

appealed.

W

This case involved a student who had previously been placed in
a program for TMI students but was then placed in a day treatment
center operated by mental health. The parents pulled the student out
of the program. believing that it was not an appropriate placement.

Although the issue in this case was appropriate placement. the
first decision rendered by the local hearing officer was that the
student should be designated as emotionally impaired. 'The decision
then stated that the student could best be served by being placed in
the day treatment program operated by mental health. 'This decision was

not appealed.

WW

This case appears to have had two major issues. ‘The first was
how much individual attention the preschool child should be provided.
and second. whether or not speech and language and occupational therapy
services must be provided by a licensed professional. The parents
contended that the program rule for severely multiply impaired should

apply to their severely mentally impaired child. since both handicaps

75

were served in the same program. This would allow for more individual
attention for the child. The local hearing officer ruled that there
was no violation of the program rule for SXI programs because the
student was identified as SMI. The state hearing officer agreed. even
though within the state hearing decision he stated. "I question whether
one program can serve both categories adequately."

On the second issue. the local hearing officer ruled that
"professionally trained Speech and Language. Occupational and
especially Physical Therapists must be made available when there is an
identified need)‘ It was also stated that "the method of service
delivery must be addressed by the EPPC comnfitxee as to whether the
therapist will supply direct or consultation or some degree of both.
The use of both approaches is reasonable and viable in programs
designed for the Severely Mentally RetardedJ' The state hearing
officer upheld the local hearing decision to have the individual
services of a speech and language pathologist and occupational
therapist made available on at least a bi-weekly basis to in-service

the people who will provide the one-to-one services to the child.

W
In this case the school district had previously identified the

student as SXI. and because of "the heavy overlay of emotional impair-
ments." recommended placement within a particular program. The school
then took the position that there was a problem as to differential

diagnosis and that they were open to a recommendation by the local

76

hearing officer. ‘The parents wanted the student identified as emotion-
ally impaired with the diagnosis of autism. and a program based on
guidelines for autistic children.

The local hearing officer ruled that the child should be
identified as severely multiply impaired. and placement should remain
in the present program. The parents appealed. and the state hearing
officer overturned the decision on eligibility and ruled that the
student should be identified as emotionally impaired and receive
appropriate programming for that classification. The local decision on
eligibility was overturned based on the state hearing officer's belief
that identification as severely multiply impaired should not be
considered unless and until it has been demonstrated that the student
cannot be appropriately programmed for in a classroom for the
emotionally impaired that takes into account the severity of the

handicap.

W

In this case the local hearing officer was able to get both
parties to agree to explore further the placement issue further. If
the family and school ultimately reached agreement. the local hearing
officer stated that the hearing process would terminate. Four days
after the hearing was held. both parties agreed to enroll the student
on a trial basis for approximately two and a half months at the school
housing other POHI students located in a neighboring school district.

Of the 140 hearings reviewed in this study. this is the first example

77

of both parties reaching agreement and the local hearing officer not
having to render a decision.
W
W
Because Public Law 94-142 did not become effective until
October 1. 1977. hearings held only during the months of October.
November. and December 1977 are included in this study. 'This comes to
a total of 15 hearings. A breakdown of the major issues around which
these hearings were held is shown in Table 1. It should be noted that
the total number of issues is far greater than the total number of
hearings held. This is due to the fact that any one hearing may be
centered on any one of the four major issues. all of the issues. or any
combination thereof.
As depicted in Table l. 13 of the 15 hearings held in 1977
(87%) involved a placement issue. Five of the hearings (33%) included
an identification issue. and only one hearing (6%) pertained to the
issue of evaluation. Less than one-third of the hearings (27%) were
based on an issue relative to a free appropriate public education. For
the first three months that hearings were held in Michigan after the
inception of PL 94-142. by far the major issue was the placement of

students.

78

Table l.--Breakdown of issues and hearings by disability and hearing
number--1977.

 

 

Issues Hearings Involved Totals
Identification EI-i4. I5: LD-IZ; EMI-#1: SXI-#1 5 (33%)
Evaluation EI-i2 1 ( 6%)
Placement EI-’1a ’2: #3: #4: ’59 #6: #7; LD-f1; 13 (87%)

TMI-#1. #2; EMI-I1; SXI-#1; POHI-#1
FAPE EI-I3. i6; TMI-#2; SMI-i1 4 (27%)

 

Table 2 illustrates parent representation at the 15 hearings
held in 1977. In 1977. parents represented themselves in 40% of the
local hearings held. Advocates represented parents in one-third of all
hearings. and parents were represented by attorneys in 27% of the

hearings.

Table 2.--Parent representation at hearings--l977.

 

 

Parent Representation Number of Hearings
Attorney 4 (27%)
Advocate 5 (33%)
Self 6 (40%)

Totals 15 (100%)

 

79

Table 3 illustrates school district representation at the 15
local hearings held in 1977. In 1977. directors of special education
represented local school districts in a third of the hearings held.
Attorneys represented districts in over one-fourth of all hearings
(27%). while superintendents represented their districts in only two
hearings (13%). In two cases. it was not stated who represented the
school district. In one case a director of instruction was the school
district representative. and a curriculum coordinator represented the

district in one hearing.

Table 3.--School district representation at hearings--l977.

 

 

School District Representation Number of Hearings
Attorney 4 (27%)
Superintendent 2 (13%)
Director of special education 5 (33%)
Other 2 (13%)
Unknown 2 (13%)
Totals 15 (99%)

 

Table 4 illustrates hearing decisions at both the local and
state levels. As can be seen. local hearing officer decisions
supported the school district position 67% of the time. Only 20% of
the time did local hearing officers support the parent/student posi-
tion. Local hearing officers incorporated positions from both parties

in only 2 of the 15 hearings. or 13% of the time.

80

Table 4.--Hearing decisions--l977.

 

 

Decision
Rendered Number Favored Favored
Appealed School Parent
Supported school 10 (67%) 5 (33%) 3 (60%) 2 (40%)
Supported parent 3 (20%) ... ... ...
Incorporated
both positions 2 (13%) ... ... ...
Independent decision ... ... ... .
Totals 15 (100%) 5 (33%) 3 (60%) 2 (40%)

 

Of the 15 local hearings held during the last three months of
the year. 5 of them (33%) supporting the school were appealed. The
state hearing officer ruled in favor of the school in three (60%) of
those cases and in favor of the parent in two (40%) of the cases. None
of the local hearings in which the local hearing officer either sup-

ported the parent or incorporated both positions were appealed.

81

COLUMNAR PRESENTATION OF
ISSUES. POSITIONS. AND

DECISIONS--1978

€32

.co_»uon o>_»wccoc c. vov:.oc.«

 

.co_»oco_axo
Loz»c:n Len co_»uon
n»coseoO o>_»ozcoc oom

.coz»_noa .nucozoa
oz» no»coea:n >__coezca

.co_»oc
-o_axo coz»L:n can co_»uon
o>_»occoc oom .»coeao
-_o>ov n.z__zu czoz» 0» .o»
-coezc»ov oz v.30: uco .xo.
.ocouo» uco o»o»n no n»coe
-otzaeflcoz»»ooe >_o»o:covo
»Oc ...: n»cov=»n toe—nae.
>._ocoz»05o con soccnnozu
:vcocco»n: o c. »coeouo.c

..o_»co»oa e:e_xoe

n_z zoooL »oc c.369 »coc:»n
oz» »coEcoL_>co oc_»o_:e_»n
ocoe o »=oz»_3 »oz» uco

. an»cov:»n u_ »n.»:o 9.3.53
sooLnno.u naow>oLn oz»

c. ocean onoz» o>ozo oco
n_o>o_ oooamco. ace zuoocn
onozz n»cou:»n coz»o z»~z
»uozo»c_ o» >»_ca»conao co
n. ocoz» ocozz oco n. »coE
noun—a o»o_LnoLano »nos oz»

.»cou

-=»n oz» no n»noco»cm
»noz oz» c. n. n»cov:»n
u_»n_»:o uc.>Lon coca
neca o coz» coz»oc Eocm
necn .u :vcozco»n: 0 cm
»cosouo.n »0c co coz»oz:
vco »coeouo.n .oco_»ou
-avo no nnoco»o_caozna<

mnxm
on

 

.Loo> .oozun ozz no
vco oz» ._»c: nou_>con
ou_>0ca n.30zn Cozuoo»

mc_»_n_> < .cco> .00zun
. ma-eam. one Lee sees
oz coo »:OEouo_a Loaocn
o no o.zmnnoa no c00n
no no.3vozun oz »nse
wc_»ooe umau Loz»0c<
.n»cozon oz» voco>mu

..oozun mc.uco»»o soc» »noz
oz .0: v.:ozn »coc=»n oz»

._00zon eco»»o coz» Loz»oL
Lozooo» mcz»_n_> o no nou_>
icon oz» coc_>0ca oz v.30zn

»coe:»n .oozun o_cume oz»

.o_zo..o>o
oLoz nou_>con cozooo»
uc_»_n_> »o: co Loz»oz3
vco »coeouo.a .oco.»ou
-avo no nnoco»o_cc0caa<

mxm
N

 

..oe
-_cwe oz v.30zn oca_zo~
ooco_coaxo e» _o_»co»on
oz» .oLonoLoz» uncooc
.mac_>wvcm oz» »ooe o»
vocmhnov oz ___3 meme
-Eocmocn .oco.»uac»nc.
..oozun oz» voco>ou

._o>o_
>Lo»coEo_o oz» »o coc_m»oc
oz c.30zn o: .ocm»»on

zozz concaa o c. nnouuan
o>ozzuo 0» n___xn quov
-ouo oz» osoz »0c noov vco
zo.z Lo_c:a co»co e» zmooco
oc:»oe »Oc nu »coz:»n oz»

.mc_»»on co_»ou:co

.ococom oz» c_z»z3 mc_oz
nno_u >L0»oco_axo no can
co_»ou:vo .ou~n>zn z»_3
.ncaoz o no »=o a sooLnno.o
_w zu_z Lo_c:m o c. cone—a
oz u_:ozn »cov:»n n_z»

.coc_o»oL oz e_aozn »cov
Inna ”cu uCc LO Loguvcl

uco »coeouo_a _oco_»ou
-avo no nnoco»o.caocaa<

.MNm
_

 

cozn_uoo

ozm

 

 

oz no»
vo_oonn<

 

ee_._uoo oz;

 

co_»_n0c »cocoa

 

co_»_noa .oozun

 

oannz

.02
uc_Loo:

 

 

voczoae. >__ocom»oew
asa-

83

.co.»oon o>_»oLcoc c. cous.uc.«

 

.nu .w con com»uon
o>_»occoc oom .con»
-.noa .n»cocoa oz»
vo»coanan >__cou_cm

.o:c_»cou

u_:ozn Eocaocn .u
~oozun o-vv.£ o c.
»coeouo_n vco .v__zu
.u co n. »cov:»n oz»
..oozun oz» uo50>ou

.vovu>oca oz v.30zn
n»con:»n .xm Lo» soocnno_u
< .no_».:u_»»_v .oco_»oeo
vco .co.»ovco»oc .o»coe
.noc:u_on Lo»oeozu>na no
onaouoz ..xm n. »cova»n oz»

.o»o_c
inoLaao »noe n. EocuoLa .u
.oonn o.eo_e oz» c. »coe
-ouo_a .»co£c_ooe_ .oco_»
-oeo oz» 0» one oovco»oc
>..o»cos no nco_»oc:u »:z
.» >..L.E.La .. »eoeeun oz»

.»coEouo_n o»o_c

-u0cano »noe oz» n" »oz3
ecu ..xn Le .» no eo_e_»
-cov. oz uzaozn »cov:»n

.oozon o_vv_e o coz»oz>

o_\N
nN_\N
«N

 

.ncooc
um».uoan n.»cov:»n
nmz» co» o»ozca0cnno
uco conoLn n. Eocooca
.um oz» cu »coeouo_c
..oozun oz» vo50>om

.voc_ons.

>_—oco_»oeo >—oco>on oz»
can Eocmoca o c. coon—a
oz »oc u.:ozn v__zu c_oz»

.n»cov:»n .um can EoLm0cn
»coe»ooc» >ou o c. vouo_a
oz v_:ozn »cov:»n oz»

.n»cov:»n .um co»
eoc96co »coE»ooc» >ou
o c. vouo_a oz v_aozn

»cov:»n .oozon o_u
-v_E oz» »0c .0 Loz»oz3
cco .»coEouo_c .oco.»ou
-avo no nnoco»o_cn0caa<

eNxm

 

.cozn_uou n.coumzno
oczcooz .oue. o_ozn:

.vono_o>ov oz coo

. co.o .oco_»ou:co co

zumzz con: cc_»o:_o>o

co cmo»zc e» LovLo

c. vo»o_nsou oz v_:ozn
oc~»no» ozozcnOCna<

. .033 oz» v9.0):

.voxo_.on Lo>oc oLoz
ozoe nco_»ochEEOCoL oz»
cco onoaLsn cc zo>con »»

onaouoz mc_»no» .oce.»_uvo
vooc »0c u_z o__zu L_oz»

.»cov:»n oz» .0

co_»o:_o>o coaoLa o oxoe o»
n»_:noLuc_»no»»coLc:u o>oz
0» o»o_ca0cano no: »_ tco
.Ooo ncoo> n >.o»oe_x0caao
vo»no».»no. no: »cov:»n oz»

.co_»oa_o>o
»no_ oz» ouc_n vozcoa
coo>-n o >.o»oe_xoLaao
Lo»no oo»o:_o>o-oc

oz u_:ozn »con:»n ovocu
-z»c.c o »oc co coz»oz:

__\N

 

.co_nuuov n.cou_.zo
oc_cooz .ouO. c.oza=

.ncooc _oco_»

nouaco co.mazn mc~>oz
n»coc:»n z»m3 zooo_n
vco .z» no no_u_»cov_
oz 1.:ozn »cov:»n oz»
..oozon oz» vocosou

.noz »coca»n oz» .o_»co»on
oz» co» cocoou oz »oc c_:ox
cocooLn .x» o c» »coeouo_m
.n_oom .oco_»ou:oo n_z
zuooc E_z n.oz »noz v.39)
zo_z3 Eocooca .zu co c.
c_oEoz v_:ozn »cov:»n oz»

.Eozooca .zu

n:o_>ocq oz» c. >.o>_»mcmoo
nc_om .oemcze ovoe voz o:
.n___xn_o_u0nvco ocou-n_on
no nooLo oz» c. oLo nuooc
n_z ouc_n .Eocmoca .x» o

em eoan_e eee .x» no eo.c.»
-cou. oz v.5ozn »cov:»n oz»

.EocmoLa .t» o

O» EQLaOLQ .tu ca 5055
omcozo »coEooo.n uco
..tu o» .u 50;» oucozu
v_:ozn co.»ou_»_»cou_
n.»cova»n vou- >co»coe
-o_o oz» »oc co Loz»oz:

ax.

 

eo_n_uoo oxn

 

 

62 no»
vo_ooon<

 

co_n_uoo oxz

 

co.»_noa »coLoa

 

ee_»_.oa .oozon

 

oann.

 

.oz
uc_coo:

 

voczone. >__oco_»05m
mNm.

81-1

.co_»uon o>_»occoc c. eoen_oc.«

 

.co_n_uoe n.coo_n»o
mc_Looz .ooo_ e_oza:

.>connoooc no eoe_>0ca
oz e_nozn mc__oncnou eco
.xcox .onOn .>mo_ozo>nn

.oozon .6 Eco» oz» c_
nouz>Lon »Loannm .»o_c»
-n_e_06zun czo n.»coen»n
oz» c_ >_zoLonocn .EoLm

-0ca .u eoc_o»coO.»_on
o c. oz 3an »coEouoE

.n»cocon oz» eoco>ou

..eezu. ze.z

.ouo. oz» c_z»_3 eoc_ooe_
>__oco_»oeo oz» co» Eco»
-nno_u eoc_o»cou-».on o c»

eouoz» oz 3an »coen»n oz»

.eonzn
-ozneo n. :ocn»_nu coon
o>_»_non: o ocoz: Eocmoca
.o.»coe.noc o c. n. »cos
noun—a o»o_c30cnno »noe oz»

.>»».zuo» _o_»coe_noL o

c. eouo_n oz e_nozn »coe
-n»n oz» »0c .0 Loz»oz3

.»coEouo_n .oco_»ou

-neo no nnoco»o.caocaa<

mem
o—

 

.eoionc; >__ocom»o.co
oz» Lo» cocooLa o c.
eouo.n oz e_nozn »coen»m
..oozon oz» eoconou

.Lozuoo» u_»_uonn o z»_3

eouo_n oz e_nozn eco eo»»_m
>_—on»oo__o»c_ >_oeoc»xo n.

e__zu oz» .»coEooocoe coo.
..nno_u coon 0» one ocox 600..

-nno_o oz» c. n»ncnz»no oz»

.»coen»n oeocmnec_z»

nzz» no n»ncnz»no .ocC.»
-oeo oz» no >».co>on oz» 50
onnouoz 32 Keane »no:. no:
EoLoOCQ .w co c_ »cosouo.a

.EocmOLQ eooLnno_u

o oczncoc o» zunoco
oLo>on no: »coec_oa

as. _oco_»oeo no ooLmoe
oz» »oc co Loz»oz:

eco .»coEouo.n .oco_»ou
-neo no nnoco»o.caozqn<

ax.

 

.m» .w Lon co.»uon
o>_»occoc oom .co_»
-.noa .n»uocon oz»
eo»Loucnn >zmcormcn

.coz»oco_axo

coz»Lnn Lo» on .u
Ln» o>_»occoc oom
.n»cocoe oz» eoconou

co.» >2. 3an .023 oz»

com »o»..0qncoc» c0» o-zzn

-coanoc oz e_nozn oocoe
-.noc no »u_c»n_e oz»
.o»omcn6caao n. n>oe
co» ec0>oz eocmoLn o u.
.o»o_cnoLaao »noe

n. EocuoLn >oe-ONN < .n
.necoz ON 0» m» ca_n

a» ccoo» 0» oz e.noz
.oom o»o_cnoceno c<
.o>.»uonzo

3

o
N

.oco_»unc»nc» co no »Loa

n_ zocn. oucmn eon» oz»

.n>oe ow. eco>oz
cc_»o»LoancoL» >co
can o.z_ncoenoc »oc no:
»u.c»n_e oz» eco .eo»oe
icoe ocoz n>oe ow. >_co
.o»o_LnoLeao n. Eocu
-oLa >oe-om_ »coccnu oz» .m

.o»o_Lnocneo

n. necoz n no >co_nzouo>
an.» n e_,ee o» ..oe oz» .~
.n__nco»nonn»coen»n oz»
uc.>oz no .ooo oz» ac.
-»ooe so» o».n_noococn o
no e00» znzccn» o» o>oz
»oc e-nozn _oozun oz»

a.

Neoe_>oLa oz co.»o»coa
-ncoc» »nnE .o»o.»aoca
.ao n. n>oe on. eco>oz
nou_>con eo»o_oc co Eocm
-oLa o »» sz eco mo»o_c
unocano nou_>zon eo»o_oL
eco EoCoOCa no n>oe om.
n_Anv no»ozcaocnno n_oom
ouonmco~ oz» .0 o~_n oz»
n. AN. »o»o_znozqno no:
zucn. .oco_»unc»nc_ 0»
o>_»o_oc .ooo .oco»>ozoz
o coz»oz3 A». "eo»conocn
ocox nonnn_ uc<u snag
.xo_nsoo eco >z»mco_
>co>no3»coen»n o_»n_»no
co Lo» oc_cooz nzz»

m_.m_\_

m~.»_
..x..
«a

 

counceoe nxn

 

oz no>
eo_ooan<

eomn_uoe ox»

co_»_n0m »coLo¢

 

eoz»_.oa .eogen

.0:
ac.Loo:

 

 

 

 

3:8... 3.26:2»
uNm_

 

 

85

.co_»uon o>.»occoc c. eoen_uc.o

 

.m.n .m

Co» co»»uon o>.»o.
-coc oom .nco_».nnn
z»oz eo»ocoacouc.

.eo»co£o_ne_ oz 3an
.oozun oz» >z eoecoe
-EOuoL no Eocaoca oz»

..oozun oz» eocosou

.EocaOCn
o»owcno.nno »noe oz» n.

eouo.n n. e_.zu ._oz» zo.zx
c. EoLaoLn »conocn oz»

..oozon co>_a

o c. EoLaoLn coz»oco

c. eouo»n oz eco .oozun
co_nu.»con o c. socaocn
co_no_»coa o soc» eo>oeoc
oz e_nozn »coen»n oz»

.»coen»n Au_»n.»nov

.un .oezu. so.» .

co» »coeouo_a .oco_»ou
-neo no nnoco»o_.aocna<

m_\z
on.

 

.onoo

n_z» no co_»oco—a<o
Coz»cnn can N.» .w .0»
co.»uon o>_»occoc oom

.n»cocoa oz» eoconou

..oozun c. xuoz oLox co_n
-.nnxo e» ac»eoo_ nco_»uo
oz» c. eo>_o>c_ ocox

oz: x_n no aneca oz» c.
nzoz»o coz: .oozun no »no
oz »oc e_nozn e_.zu L_oz»

.co.»ouneu no »coe
-»conoo o»o»a oz» no n»coE

-oL_naoc oz» z»_3 ouco__a
-EOU ..n» c. oLox co_n_nnxo
.5» e523 noLneooocn oz»

.»coe

-n»n »oozun za_z o no
co_n_nnxo oz» .co_»ooneo
u._zna o»o_cn0ccno oocu

nxm
«N—

 

.n»coen»n

_one.>_ec_ co» ac.EEoLa
-oLa O» on.» oz» oe_>oLa
e_nozn:o»o_cnocano: ego:
oz» .oe.» n.z» »o eo»oca
-o»c_ oz 0» zanOco ac.
-co_»ucn»-ze.z co zanOco
.ozLo> »Oc n. »coe

-n»n oz» .Eocaocn .o»cou
»coE»ooC»>oeo»o_caoLnao
-oao co c. »coeouo_a
eonc»»coo >z eo>con

oz »noz e303 »coen»n oz»
..OOzun oz» eoco>ou

.no_»_>_»uo co_no_c
-cnuoc»xo eco .no_»_._uo»
uzeoeouococ o»o_caoLnao
.»coEa.noo eco no. ...an .onoo
8.5.. 9:3 3: e. ...u :9.»
eo>o._oz »oz» »oz» eo»o»n
no: ». .»coEc0c.>co on.»
-u.c»no. »noo. oz» c. »oc
no)». So» eco EoLaoLn »co...
-»oo.» »oe oz» c. »coEouo_a
o» eo»oomzo >oz» .ec_e c.
»coeouo_n o>_»oc.o»_o coo—u
0c eoz n»cocoa oz» zanoz»_<

.Lo»cou »cos»oo.»
»oe oz» c» ac_EEocaoLn

no co_»onc.»coO o n. »coe
-ouo_n o»o..ao.nao »noe oz»

..ueaa. .Eoe

-n»n oao-_oozun-za_z o
co» no.».>_»uo eco no.»
-...uo. CoznuzLLnuo.»xo
no .o_coe eco .»coEco.
c_>co o>_»umc»noc »noo.
.»coeouo.n .oco.»ou
-neo no nnoco»o_cno.an<

an
.—

 

ce...uue ex»

02 no»
eo.ooaa<

 

co...uoo oz.

co_»_noa »cocou

co.»..o. .eogun

onnn.

.oz
ac_cooz

 

 

 

 

eoz—one. >—_oco_»osw
o»a_

 

 

 

86

£0.33 on.»o.:oc c. eoen.uc.e

 

 

 

 

 

.3 c. ac.c.o..» 32......
eoz .353» n. »coen»n oz»
... nnooao»co>eo oz e.no:
». eco .n»n.oz oz e.no3 .co.»o.....o..c. »no» to: .»coen»n .oozon
..e.oncn0uo»oz» eo»o»n co eonoz .eono_o>oe oz .neooc za.z o ..o» ac.»ooe
no... »_ eco .eo»noaann 3an co... 3o: < .eoeooc n.»coen»n oz» »oo... :3 ..u. co »o .33an
.3 a» Co. 3.33 no... nonno.u n.eo....eozun< no! co... eonoao...» oz» .0 e303 .occOncon .023 .023 z eoecoEBooL
o>.»o.toc oon .co.» .>.o»o.eo§.. eo»o.neoo oz co.»ocoe.nc3o.. o 6:28: >z eoecoieoooc nonno.o 3320 »e 39.32..
.30.. .n»cocon oz» 0» no: 9333 3o: .30.» cu. oz» »o co.»oa.o.»..on co.»ouneo .29an eco unocuno oz» .co.»ooneo :3
320.33 37.8.... x -.noa z»oz eo»o..on.0uc. »cocoa noxocoz» zanOz» co>u .ococoa no 5333600 < 22...... o»o...no..ano ooc... an
.nno00ca mu.
eco gnaw »conoonznn c.
eonn eco >.o»o.eofie.
ocOe oz o» 9.23»
»co...o>o.zoo .oco.».ee< ...
.2.»ch n :26 .»n...o.oz» .oco.»oanouo co
eo»on.o>o eco .co.nnon so.» 32...: eco .>.o»o..
zuoo .....Oz m .3. ..oo: unecnno n»couno.oeo Loz»o
onoe.» Nn_noz .o..» o zuooLaao »coen»n oz» .....oz
cOeoe.>oLa oz e.nozn »o .n o» oocoIoaxo .839.» 9.0.3
.223 3433 o .»co».nncoo ..ozuoo» oz»
o co eoe.>o.a oz 60... 3.33 »uo...e aneca
3an 33oz» 9.0.5 :23 ..0 30.0720 oen.uc. .xoozon>oe.. .»oe o 52 .
Sign ..o .one.>.ec. .N. 3an »oe oz» h.n ..oec.oeoL co» no.»...zon.e ac.c..oo.
...oo: o oz» .333: »co».nnc0u c. »co».nnc3 .ozuoo» .5333:
:3 m .>..oe ..noz . ac.oa-co oe.>o.:. no ..ot. no o so.» 3oz >z eo»co...o.a no: 3935 .20.»
no .555... o noo.>..on 33.5... ...o».» ..o oo.>..on -nnn .no.co..»uo.o ..o ooco nounuuo »0c ..0 ..oz»oz3
»co».nncou ..ozuoo» ..c. e303 oz: »co».nnc0u oz» c. Eocaok. .ou.czuo» eco eoeooc 3333 .o
9:33 e.nozn »coen»n .. ..ozooo» o >z eo»oc.eLoou .oco.»ooo> o c. 25632.. o »cnoeo oz» o..o3 nonnn.
.30.» oz 3an Eocao... .ou.czuo» .»z eo>...on oz 3323039 229on .co.»ooneo cho
x -.noa z»oz eozoconcog. .oco.»ooo> >oe-:oz oz» 39.. e303 »coen»n oz» ....an 3250...: oocu N
.n.noz >.».oo: o »noo.
»o co nou.>con oe.>oLn
3an 33.330» ..ozuoo» .325: .3 a5...
a» eco .3 no >»...z.a..o -Eocaocn co.»ooneo .3an
zn..zo»no o» 39.3 no o>.ouo.. o» o.z.a_.o »o: no:
nxoox N »nLC oz» actne .nou_>..on eco asp-5.30.... ocobocoz» eco c0.».c..oe .»coen»n
e.oz oz e.noz... umuu c< co.»ooneo .20an eo...nao. 0.. oz» .0 3:95.38» oz» .023 o.ee.e o »o »co... .x»
x .n»co..oa oz» eo..0>o... eco a» no: e..zo oz» »ooc. »Oc e.e »coen»n oz» .32.. ecoco.»oo.».»coe. .
5.393 0...». ”new“? 5.33.. o»... 53.3.. »coLo... 5.23.. .02»... onnn. affluo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eo.zon.z ac.c.oo»
2m.

87

.co.»uon o>.»ozzoc c. vova.uc.«

 

.n..o»ov

»oz»z:. Lo» on a» go.
co.»uon o>.»azzmc oom
.n»cozma oz» vo.0>ou

.ncou.vcoz »o..E.n
z».3 co»v..zu vco
u..zu n.z» no. coho
»coezu»ou a c.z».3
EoLmOLQ oucov_uc.
-30. o o»oozu 0»
on. z».3 :50: »n36
»u.z»n.9 .oozun oz»
.o»o.znoznao

»o: n. »mz» >z
uovcoEEOuoz 8-500»; ..
.n»:ozon oz» oozo>ou

N

.EozaOza o»u.za0znno co
Lo. zuzoon n:0.>ozn o c.
to»o.o.> cooz vnz n»zm.z

nnouo»n oat z.oz» »oz»
n»cozon oz» >z vo»o»n an.»
no: ». .nvzmoco»n onoz»
»ooE »oc v.u uamu oz»

>z uovcoEEOuo» eozaOLQ oz»
.nc.»»on EOOLnno.u oz» vzo
u:.»»on oc0-0»-oco o z»oz
:. >..on »nozoz» ouoauco.
can zuoonn o>.nco»xo no
..o: no .vo.=»o:z»n >.zu.z
n. zu.z) o~.n snaznno.u
..o...n o nvoo: v..zu oz»

.n»zo.z nnoUOLn oat »o
co.»o.o.> vooo..o 50» noon
uEnv house 0» uo~.zoz»ao
»o: no) zoo..uo ac.zuoz
oz» »oz» voc.o»:.os 0n.-
noz ». .vo>oLnE. oz u.:ou
vozo»uo eoszLa oz» »oz»oz3
z».3 .oov »oc v:- .»oQOzn
cooz uoz »con:»n oz» .0
co.»ou.n.nn~.u oz» ». >.co
oc.ELo»ou u.:ozn zoo.».o
ac.zooz oz» »oz» vo»o»n
no) ». .co.».vvo c. .»ouuo
0» voz »u.z»n.v .oozun

oz» co.»no »noz oz» no:
gan» oz» »» noucoeeouu.
saunasn :500» ou»:0noz: <

.mc.zooz n.z» :.

o.o» Loam: o vo>o.a
oc.eeozoo»a mo »uoano
ouoamco. oz» .o.nozno
no vonocoo.v v..zu

o 50» co.»au:uo o..
azaa o»o.»qozaao oo». a
van »coEouo.a .oco.»ou
-avo uo nnoco»o.zno»aa<

max»

 

.mu 0» Lo»
co.»uon o>.»ozzoz
oon .nzo.».noa
z»oz vo»o;oa;o»:.

.o>.»uo.»o
n. vou.>o»a mc.oz Eozm
qun oz» »oz» oucou.>o

»co.u...:n n. ozoz» vco

.o»o:covo ozo noo.>zon
o>.»zonaan »conoza oz»
..oozun oz» nozo>ou

.xzox n.z

.z».3 a: aoox E.z a.oz 0»
zovzo :. Baeznno.u no.3moz
oz» c. guy: . .»au ...z

n £.z z».3 x50) 0» go»:»

o o>oz v.30zn »cou:»n oz»

.o»o.znoLano

ozo vco oac.»c0o v.:ozn
nou.>zon »co».:ncoo zozuoo»
.»zonnoooc »o: n. songnnm.u
zo.:ooz oz» :. »cov:»n

oz» z».3 x50) 0» so»:» <

»EozoOLn

.oco.»ou:uo oz» 50 »zon
no n>ov ..oz m »nmo. »o
50. Lo»:» vo.u..~:a o
o>oz »con:»n >zo»coEo.o
oz» v.:ozm .co.»oo:vo
u..z:n o»o.»ao»ano oozu

w.\m
«m

 

.no.u:»n .oco.»ooo>
50\uco u.6ovouo so.

oaooz so». »ooz»ou 0»

»o: no 0n nozo>..ou
oz 0» ohm non.)
anon o>.»zonn:n >c<
.no»o.a£0u n. oz.

0
J

-»no» Lo».o uoco>c09

o
M

oz v.30zn an. 3o: 4

.oo»o.a£0u oz

n.30zn co.»o=.o>o

o>.ncozozn€0u 3o: < .N
.»co.u.»

nuanc. n. mu. L0.... ..

.n»zozon oz» nozo>au

.aw. oz» c. vovn.uc.

oz »nae co.» .oco.»ouo> oz»
Lo. no>.»uomzo new n.oom
0.».uonm ...mz >va»n ac.»:v
oou.>o»a oz n.30zn nou.>
-Lon onoz» .con: nonogc.
»oc ozo no.v=»n u.covmuo
n.»cov:»n oz» On vov.>oLn
oz u.:ozn nou.>zon oooaaco.
vco zoooAn vco 4503 .a.oOm

.au. oz» 2. vou:.uc.

oz »oc vooc nonn~.u
co.»ou:vo .oco.»ouo>

oz» 50.. no>.»oo.‘zo vco
n.o0u u.u.uonm .nomcwzu
ac..:vozun Lo» ov.>o»n
o» no an o.z.xo_» c.an»
o» nvooc nou.>zon oooam
oco. v:- zuooAn ago :50:
.o.o0n so» o.:uozun oz»

.oxo»

o» n. »cov:»n .oozun
zu.z oz» nonna.u .nco.»
nouo> oz» .0» no>.»oomzo
uco n.ooo nov.>o»a
33.3.»on .3. oz» »o: »o
»oz»oz3 .»co .vo..o>. .o.» oz
9.:ozn nou.>zon »nozoz»
ouoauco. vco zuoonn

one use) .o.oOn eoz:

o» o>.»o.oz .co.»oo:vo
u..z:a o»o.»no»nao oozu

m.\m
z

 

co_n.uoo oxn

 

0:

 

no»

vo.oona<

co.n.ooo ozz

 

co.».nOm »cozou

 

co_»_no¢ .oozun

 

.02
uc.zooz

 

 

 

uo.zon.a u:.czoo»
asa.

88

.co.»uon o>.»o»z~c c. uou:.uc.o

 

 

 

 

 

 

.»zosao.o>ov ...zn .v..zu v.0-»oo»
53052.: ozo .>»...z. um o .3» 7.5.3.6....
-3953.»ch can :0.» .023 0.. 9.5. ..otc: »cflion ..o.
uco»»ooc.nnozvvono.m uzaa oz» .0 >»...z.ncoanoz >»._.z.ncoanoz new »cge
uo»oz»n .n...zn.:u.»o~ oz» »0: no: »coeooo.a .a.» nouo.a .oozun o»o>.»n
-..o.u0n.»coan.o>ou acou.noz so» »cosxou .>». van .>»...u~» »coeouo.a
oun:ozo..oc.2ooz»n -..uo. .o.»coo.no» o c.z».3 .o.»coz.noz »noz-z~
-z.o&.»=ac..o»coz~a .»coe>oa no» o.z.ncoanoz oz v.30: »zosouo.a »noz oz» a oc.zco»»o o..z3 »co
ovs.uc. ..tasozuOLm .~ ozo: n.oozon u..z:n oz» »oz»uoozmo.occ0nzoa .oozun ucanOu .oco.»ou:vo oz»
.m» .1» Lo» o>.»oz .EozoOLQ o»o.zn0zuao ~z.-zm »m we co.n.>Oza wad» zu:oz».o ..oozun u.».u Lo» »coe>oa. co.»ou=vo
uzoc oon .co.n.uoo coofi.>0za;.»c.om oz» Love: vco .>»...uou noun o c.z».x so» toeeozu o..zan o»o.»aoLnno ooz»
n..ou.».o mc.zooz zouon..::~.uuo» .. ozoo zaoz-z~ o c. not »coe so»; ago vouo.n >.o»o.» vco »coEouo.n .oco.»ou m~xm
.30. oz» 3oz...» x .033 oz» tong-... -oqu. 30.30.an »noe oz» -neooc-33:3 »cota»n oz» unto u.c nnoco»o.._no»&< «m
.»ov ..a»
o o» a: zonoozuc.
oz Segue»; oz»
z. o6.» .o »caoso oz» .4
.ov.o vzo
zozuoo» EOOznno.o oz»
>z no»coEo.nE. new
»o oz» »z uu:m_nou
oz 0» n. EoszLQ
»coeno.o>oz-»0»oa < .m .uonoozuc. oz v.:ozn »ou
.>.xoo3 .oozun oz» »0 z»mco. oz» .4 .o»o.590zano n. Eoszzn
nos.» a no zone no 0» .o»o.z »onu».oz »cozzau oz» .z
>.xoo3 nos.» ~ 50». -neooc» n. v..zu .o:v.> .o»o.z
nonoozoz. oz v.=ozn n.vc. n.z» so» vocu.nou unconao n. zu.z3 .Eoo» .A>az
nco.nnon >aozoz» Eozuozn »coeao.o>ov onno.u zoz c. no.».>.»oo .oozun oz» .0 z»mco.
omoawzo. zco zuooam .N ago»oe u...uoan < .m so»oe no>.ouoz u..zu oz» .M van .EozmoLn »cosao.o>ou
zzu.:»co.»ocm.noz oz» .oonoozuc. .o»o.za0znno n. -»o»oa a so. too:
.N» .x» zuaoLz» »oe oz »noz oz v.:ozn >nozoz» zoo: o oo.3» »nozoz» .»aozoz» omoaoco. zen
he. o>.»ozzoc oon cou nvoo: .oco.»ouanu .. omonmco. uco zuooan .~ omoamco. uco zuoonn .~ zuooan b0 »c306o. co.»ou
.co.».noa .n»cozon .nco.» .z» n. co.»ozm.nov ..z» n. co.»ocm.nou unto u..z:a o»o.»a0znao m.~\~
oz» no»zoon=n x -.noa z»oz zo»ozon509c. o»o.zno»aao »noe oz» .. o»o.za0znan »noe oz» .. ooz» vco zo.»ou.».»cou. aw
:.>..zo»uo.n.»onvo>o.zuo .nzo.
oz »Occmu nou.>zon u>ozoz .o.uOn o»o.zn0zaao
new nv.o >z~»co6o.nnan o>o.zuo o» »ovzo c. .0z»
‘0 on: oz» z».z nonno.u nc0u uo >»...z.nnoa zo»»oz
»o.:moz c. co.»nuavo .mc.»»on .OOzun zm.z oz» o zouzo v.30: »coeouo.n .»coo
»oz» zuan n. amu.vcoz o»c. »zova»n oz» o»ozmo»c. n.z» .oc.c.oz» co-nvcoz u:»n v.0nzoo>oc~ o 50»
oz».:u>».zo>on Lo oz:»oc o» zono.o>oz oz v.30» co.n z».: voz.>05n oz v.30» no.» .»coeco».>co o>.»u.z»noz
oz»: onaouoz o»o.»nozaao o ozozx ..oozun zm.z .ouo. u.>.»uo vo»o.ozozzoz ozozx »nwo.. co.»ou:vo
.co.n.uov n. »co5c0z.>co co.»ouavo oz» c. »coeouo.n 0 oz v.30: o:.»»on noznxzoz vozo» u..z:n o»o.za05nna ooz»
n.zou.».o oc.zooz zo.:uoz oz» 60;» .m>oeo¢ »zoz:»n oz» .0. »coECOL u.ozn o c. noun—a ». vo>zon vco »cosooo.n .oco.»ou .xw.
.ouo. oz» u.oza= x ..oozon oz» vozo>ou u.>co o>.»u.z»noz »noo. oz» oz »noz v.30) »cov:»n oz» oauo no nnoco»o.za0zna< .
co.n.uoo oxm wu.owmm< co.n.uoo oz» co.».n0m »cozou co.».noa .oozom oann. oz.wuo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

voz.one. >..o»zox o.zooavu
chm.

89

.co.»uon o>.»o»»oz c. zona.uc.«

 

.co.»oo.».»o.u
3.35. .8 2 .2» .8
co.»oon o>.»o»»oc oon

.nmc.

-voooozn co.n:oan:n
\co.n.aaxo o»:»:. :.
vo>zonzo >.n:o.:u.»oe
oz »nae nnouo»a

out o» n»zm.» oz»
.n»zo.»nnouo»ao:u »o
ncc.»o.o.> zoo.» ozoz
ozoz» onsoooz no»oc.e
nzo» >.o»o.vose. oz

0
N

.o»o.»ao»anoc.
uco uo.».»namca o»o
nmc.zoouo»n co.na.uxo 0n
.o»o.aEOuc. no: »zonxo
oz.n»:o co >z co.»
-o:.o>o coa=-voozoo :< .m
.co.n.:axo
vzo .co.ncoan:n .»coe
-o>o»as. .o»o.>ozoz »o
zoo. oz» Lo» m:.»c30uoo
.zo>.o>c. no.ucomo
oz» coo3»oz Emzooza oz»
uo»oc.t»00o >.»oao»a »Oc
uoz »o.»»n.v .OOzun oz»
.mc.»ooz

N

.n.oz
oz v.30» mc.»ooz oz»
..»c: n>mv o. vco>oz
co.ncoan:n oz» one.»
Ice» 6» .o>o»aao oz.

-»co»m co.»u:»»nc. u..
uzaa »o »covco»c.zoa:m
oz» .0 oucov.>o voz
»u.»»n.u .oozun oz»
.co.»u:»»nc. u.—
uzam »o »covco»:.»oaam
oz» 50;» co.»u.z»no»
co.ncoan:n >ov-o.
oz» mo »o>.o3 n »noaco»
v.30» .oozun oz»
..occOn
uzon .oco.»u:»»n:.
uco n»cov:»n »oz»o
vLoIO» vo»oo».u co.n
unozomo .ou.n>zn uco
o>.nnouxo »o oocov.>o
vo»coEauoo no: ozoz» .N
.n»coza»n ov:.uxo vco
vconnan 0» co.»om..zo

-'

o
I“

.»cov

-:»n .z» u.0-»oo>um.

o »o co.n.:axo mz.vcon
uco zo.ncoan:n oz»

 

 

 

»nas co.ncoannn oz» .. oz» 0» »o.za vo.cov vco .»ozoa .»zo.» oz» 0» o>.»o.o» .co.»oo:vo m~xm
x .n»co»oa oz» vozo>ou ozo: n»za.» nnouo»n one .. noz »u.»»n.v .oozon < .. o..zan o»o.»ao»nno oozu «u
.oEOz ».oz» 0» oEOo »o»:»
.>»...uo» .x» o o>oz vcm ..o »o .OOzun
u.».ooan o z. uo»ouo. vco»»o »o: »o ..OOzon
Eo»oo»n co.»o:»»n:. »cozo»».v o c. vo»ouo. .co.»u:»»n:.
o>.nco»c. >zo»coEo.o .u.»n.»:o oz» ac.>»on onco»c. z».3 Eozmo»a
.co.n.uov uzozo. oz» z. vouo.a Eozmo»a o 0» 0m z.:ozn >za»coeo.ou»oxo. >»...uo» .v..zu v.0-»oo>u» o
n.»ou.».o ac.»coz oz v.:ozn u..zu oz» »az .>»...uo» .t» oz» .x» o z. vo>zon oz >.o»o.» Lo» »coEouo.n .oco.»ou o.\m
.ouo. oz» v.oza: x ..oozon oz» vozo>ou o» oo »o: n.30zn z..zu oz» -QOLano »noe z.:oz.u.ttvoz» unto no nnoco»o.»no»aa< .
co.n.uoo czn Mw.owmm< co.n.uoo oxz co.».n0m »zozon co.».n0m .oozom oann. oc.wuoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vo».oae. >..o»cox o.zoc.o»»

mum.

9O

.co.»oon o>.»o»»oc c. zov:.oz.¢

 

 

 

 

.»oo>
. ..tm
WMWQ»NMMH “ocuowoMHHM ..xoa no »coeouc.n vco .o»o.»no»ano no vo...»cou. >.»co»
. co.»oo...»cov. »cozzox o» n. Eozuo»a .zm co z. ozau »con:»n o »o.
vco .zom Mo ”M.».“cov. >»...zo o>.».cuOo zanOco »coeooo.a »cozzao oz» »coeooo.a .oco.»ou:vo
oz v.30z » vs» oz» zw.z o o»ou.vc. nzo.»oc zen ..zn no vo.».»cou. »o nnoco»o.»no»nao, ..\.
x .n»co»oa oz» uo»»oaa=m o.ono .ou.ao.ozo>nn »couo¢ >.»oo»»ou n. »cov:»n oz» uco co.»ao.».»cov. ~
.n..o»oz »oz»»3.
go» .§ .zm Lo» co.»uon
o>.»oz»oc oom .»vzonoom
c. oz v.30: z».ooz .uono.u
n.t..zu oz» »oz» :zoocOo m:.oz no: uouo.a cooz
oz» »zoaaan o» vo»:on .v..zo ».oz» voz »cov:»n oz» ozozz
no.» »0: no: oucov.>o o» uzo~oz z».ooz .o.» »o»cou oz» ooc.n .o»o .u..zu v.0nzoo>ao. a.
»co.o.»»=m .co.».noa aco»oa o vonoa co.»n».»nc. -.LQOLQQQ no: co.»:».»nc. Lo» »coeooo.q .oco.»oo m.\m
x .OOzon oz» vo»»oaa=m »o.:u.»»oa o c. »coEouo.m »o.:o.»zon o c. »coeooo.a unto »o nnoco»o.»no»aa< «.
838» ea ”in“? 8.28» 2: 8.53.. 2.3.... 82.3.. 328 3:. «Emu»:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vo».oo£. >..o»coz >.o»o>on

wsm.

531

 

.»ou..»o

mu.»ooz .ooo. oz»

>z voc.6»o»ov no»::.E
ma 0:» eoz» »oz»m»
.zuoo no»:c.£ cm

.0 nco.nnon >.zoo3 m
ou.>o»a 0» co.n.uou
oz» zo...noe »az
.co.n.uou n.»oo..»o
ac.»ooz .ouo. v.oza:

.co.»=.0no»

mc.xoon »o» ncooe
o»o.»aoznao oz» no:
nnouozn oc.»ooz oz»
.»a o »0

co.n.>»on:n »uo».t
oz» zone: »n.nno

>mE ov.o uo.».»»ou ¢
.»aozoz» .onz.>
-.vc. oz» oc.>o»a
..ozn »n uo.».»»ou <
.xoo: Lon

nco_nnon »m o»:c.e
um: oozz» eoz» nno.
»oz ov.>oLn o» .oozom

M

N

.co.».non
.n»co»on oz» to»zona=m

.zov.>

toga mc.oz no: »oz) coz»
ou.>»on »m »o »c305o
»o»oo»o o c.o»c0u v.30:
»oz» oz» ac_:o_.o» a».
oz» »oz» o>o..oz o» vo.
ozox »oz» onaouoz »zoqo»
uaaw oz» »0 ooco»nouuo
uocm.n ».oz» o».anov
o»o.»ao»aao n. oc.zooz
oz» .nuooc n.z..zu ».oz»
»ooE 0» o»o:oouc »oz

n. vov.>o»a oc.oz »nozoz»
.ou.n>zn »o »caoso oz»

.z».3 »coeoozmo c. vocm.n
n»cozoa oz» zo.z3 co.»
novco650uo» gnaw oz» eoz»
»oz»o» a». co 0» vo»o.o»
». onaauoz o»o.»ao»nao
»o: no: mc.zooz oz» »oz»
vozco»cou 0n.o .oozun oz»

. .z..zu
u.0-»oo>-n n.z» »o nuooz
oz» »ooe o» o»o.»ao»aao
vco o»o:covo n. Axooz

»oa zaoz a. vov.>o»a m:.oz
noo.>»on »m »o »caoso oz»

.z..zu

.oozunoza o o» .uou.>
unza oc.oz nou.>»on »a
»o »coacozo. co.»ouavo
u..z:n o»o.»ao»ano oozu

oxz »
.mxm
N

 

.cozn.uov n.»ou.».c
w:.»ooz .ooo. z.ozn:

.co.».non
.n»zo»oa oz» to»»o¢a:m

.»oz »on nzsoz

m o» N »o vo.»oa 0 Lo»
noo.>»on »co».=nc0o »ozuoo»
o>.ouo» z.:ozn »coza»n oz»

.ou.>»on o>.»»oaa:n

o eoz» »oz»». Eozoozn
co.»ou=zo .o.ooan o »o»
zoo: oz» no»ou.zc. co.»
-co>»o»z. »o >».nco»c. oz»

.»cov:»n zm.z »o.caa
0 so» AEo»n>n >zo>..ov
o»o.»ao»nno. co.»oo:vo
u..z:n o»o.»ao»ano oozu

.N\~.
.

 

co.n.uoo orm

oz no»
vo.ooaa<

 

 

co.n.ooo ox»

 

:o.».no» »cozog

 

co_»_¢oz .oozon

 

0°:

 

o:.»ooz

 

 

ooz_oae. z»_-o= on_zzoz»o as. »..qo.n>zz

osm.

92

 

.c0.n.uov n.»oo.»»0
oczoooz .ooo. o.ozoa

.»co3c0».>co
o>.»u.»»no» »noo. oz»
:. £o»m0»a .00zon >09

»cozzao oz» :. on:.»zoo
0» oz 9.003 »coeooo.n
.oco.»ou:vo »noz oz»
.»u.»»n.v

.oozun oz» vo»»oan:w

.n.noz .o.»:ov.no» o

:0 »noz oz» »0» .oozum com
-.zo_: oz» »o oooo.» oczo»
>z Eozoozn o»o.»a0»cao
»noz oz» o>.ouo» v.30:
v..zu n.0u»oo>-» ».oz»

.»coaouo.n »co»

-»au oz» c. oac.»c0u v.:ozn
uco EQLOOLQ .oozun »ov o »o
»cosooo.a »conoza oz» c.
>..o.o0n was >..ou.£ozouo
..o: u:.0z n. »coz:»n oz»

.»zou

-:»n >»o»co£o.o co »0»
a»co£c0».>co o>.»u.»»no»
»noo.. c0.»oonuo

u..z:a o»o.»a0»nno oo».
vzo .»coeouo.a .oc0.»oo
navo »0 nnoco»o.»a0»na<

m.\z
z

 

..oo »_oz

»oz»0 oz» c0.»ou:oo
.ozocoo 0»c. vo»o»mo»z.
oz vco n.noz >33:2 o
:0 uo».oa€. uc.zooz oz»
»0» so»90»a o :. vooo.n
oz u.:ozn v..zo oz»
.»u.»»n.z

.oozon oz» vo»»oaa:m

.»o.»»n.u .ouo. :30 ».oz»
c.z».3 £00» ou»:0no» a

c. zouo.n v..zu oz» vo»co3
>oz» .o__zo ..oz» 0» .o»coe
u.»»ov oz v.00: nmc.vc:0»
u»:n 3o: oz» van on» 00» n.
to»oo0. n. uo».o0£. u:.»ooz
..0» .539... oz» ozoz: .oozun
o.vv.e oz» 0» ooco»n.v oz»

.n.noz o5.»

-»zon o co vo».oae. ac.»ooz
oz» »0» Eo»m0»a o c. uouo.a
oz v.30zn new .nno. m:.»ooz
.o»o»o..z .o»:oz.»0ncon
ooo>on o oc.>oz no ..o3

no nEo.z0»a m:.»ooz oc.>oz
n. »cov:»n oz» .nco.»oa.o>o
.ou.o0.ozu>na 03» c0 uonoz

.»zov:»n .oozun o.vo.e a
»0» »coeooo.a .oc0.»oo
uavo »0 nnoco»o.»30»an<

uuxo

 

.>..ov zo»»oan:o»» »oz
can am: no oocou.no» c.
vouo.n oz v.30zn »con:»n
.co.».n0n »u.»»

-n.z .oozun oo»»0aa:m

.zoo3 o
n>ov m on: so.» can 0»
c0.»o»»00nco»» go» »on
v.30zn »u.»»n.v .oozun

oz» can .oocoz.no» c.
coz» »oz»o» n.noz .00zun
»ov a :0 on: »o uouo.n
oz v.30zn v..zo ».oz»
.nonno. ac.»ooz ozo>on
z».3 n»cova»n o>zon »oz»
onaouoz EoLmO»n o»o:0
noun co ov.>o»n zoo on:
.»coE».one. oz.zooz

oz» »0 >».»o>on oz»

»0 onaouoz nzooc n.u..zo

L.oz» »oo& 0» o»1:a
nova »0: n. .OOzun o.v
«v.8 oz» 0. EoLGOLQ oz»

I
M

N

..00zun o.vu.s 0.».0
noun a c. n»coz:»n .:
»0» o.zo..o>o oco noz

.oozun oz» .eozoozn »ou
o »co; n»co»on oz» .. .a
.>»...z.nc0ano» ».oz»
n. onconxo oz» .>..ot
»cov:»n oz» »zoancoz»
0»zn.2 n»co»on oz» ». .m
.n>ou.»u
c0 oEoz uco n>ozc0t :0
on: o» co.»o»»0anco»»
so» n»cozon oz» onzaz
ue.o» ...3 .oozon oz» .N
.n.noz .o.»cov.no» o
:0 on: oz» »o vo..0»co
oz n.00zn »cou:»n oz» ..

..c0.»o»»oanco»»

vco »coE:0».>co o>.»
nu.»»no» »noo.. co.»ou
unto u..z:a o»a.»n0»nao
ooL» nco ._omz. »noz oz»
.o» .oozon coo.zo_:.
»coEouo.n .oco.»ou

nauo .0 nnoco»o.»a0»an<

m.\»

 

.co.n.ooz n.»ou.»»o
mc.»ooz .ouo. u.ozqa

K

.nzo. .ooouo» vco

o»o»n z»oz »o »co»:. oz»
c.z».3 ncm o»o.zn0»aao
n. Eozmozn »noz .o»o
.oozunozn oz» c. »coE
nouo.a vovcoeeouo» oz»
.co.».noa »u.»»n.v
.00zun oz» to»»0aa:m

.zuoOLnno c0.»oo.:0&
uEOu .o»0» oz» mc.na .z..zo
».oz» .0» zo»»o»n oz n.30zn

EoszLQ .oozunoza 3o: <
.zuooznno z0.»ou.c:&£0u
.o»0» oz» mc.n: FoLOOLQ
.: o c. oooo.» on o.=oz»
v..zu v.0-z»z05u». ».oz»

.o»u.»
unconno n. >00.0o0z»oe »ooc

.ozo oz» :0 uonoz Eozuoza
.: .oozunozn o c. »coEouo.m

..n»:ov:»n .:

oc.zuoo» »0» zuo0»aao
c0.»au.c:&£0u .o»0»
nanzo> .o»0. :0.»ouauo
o..zaa o»a.»90»nno oo»»
wen .»coEouo.n .oc0.»ou
nauo »0 nnoco»o.»00»na<

cmxo
.

 

c0.n.uoo ozm

 

0: no»
uo.oonn<

 

 

c0.n.ooo or»

 

:0.».noa »no»-a

 

c0.».n0¢ .oozom

 

.02
u:.»oox

 

 

voz.one. o:.»oo:
o»a.

93

.c0.»uon oo.»o..oc c. uov:.oz.o

 

.N»
.xm .0. co.»uon o>.»
al..nc wow .5»: .m8

.n»co.oa oz» uo».0caam

.c0.».noa
.oozun oz» uo».0aa:n

.o»o..ao.aao »«05 no: no.5
-Eo.00.a .xw .0» no.2. oz»
:0 vonoz ac.Eeo.uo.a .o»o
-..n0.aao »o: no: .oo.>.on
»oo..v coz» .oz»o..n»uo»coo
:0.»o».=ncoo .0 >.o>..oo
oo.>.on vovcoEEOoo. oz»

.uo»co..o3 >..oc0.»ouavo
eoz) uoa0.o>ou oz ...: mc.E
-£o.oo.n o.:»:. .nou.>.on
o»o:.o>o 0:0 .tcoEEOoo.
£0.26.» ...:ozn oz) .n.oc0.n
-no»0.a >z 0o0.>0.n 50.00.;
o eoz» o»o..no.nao o.oe n.
co.u..zo .oocaos .0. eo»n>n
>.oo..ou oo.>.on »zo.oc <

.u__:o .oozooo..
0 .0» .Eo»n>n >.o>..ou
oo.>.on oz». c0.»ooauo
o..z:n o»o..00.0qo oo.»
0cm »zoEooo.0 .oco.»ou
-:0o .0 nnoco»o..00.nc<

z.\.
«N

 

.on.:c

oco .zooooo .»o ... .0
nou.>.on o>.».0en:n z».3
..xm .0. to.mo.n o c.
vooo.n oz v.30zn »coen»n
.n»co.on oz» vo.0>ou

..o>o. vo..oae.

>..o»coe o.zoc.o.» oz» »o
voc0.»oc:. v..zo ..oz» can
.vo..one. >..o»co& >.o.o>on
o.o3 oz) n»cova»n zo>.on

». onaoooz o>.»u..»no.

vzo o»o..no.naoc. no:
.oozon oz» >z vovcoEEOoo.
Eo.oo.n oz» c. »coeouo.a

.o»...n0.nan

no: n»cov:»n .xn no ..o:
no n»coz:»n .zn uc.>.on
56.00.; o c. »coeooo..

A»:o£:0..>co o>.»o..»no.
»noo.. :0.»ou:vo

o..zaa o»o..ao.nno oo.»
vco »coEooo.n .oco.»ou
-:0o »0 nnoco»o..00.an<

m.\z
.

 

co.n.uoo oxm

 

 

0: no»
vo.oonq<

 

c0.n.ooo or»

 

c0.».n0m »co.ou

 

c0.».n0¢ .oozom

 

oann.

.oz
oz..oo:

 

 

vo..o¢£. ».a.».:x >.o.o>om

anm.

9h

W
A total of 13 hearings held during 1978 are included in the
following narrative. ‘These include nine hearings in which the local
hearing officer's decision was somehow altered by the state hearing
officer and four hearings that were not appealed but require explana-

tion beyond that which can be provided in columnar form.

W

In this case school personnel recommended placement in an
elementary classroom for emotionally impaired students. and speech
therapy services. The parents contended that their child was entitled
to the following services:

1. A trained physical therapist. knowledgeable of the specific
problems of autistic children. to provide physical therapy services and
work in cooperation with the student's private physical therapist.

2. Continued speech therapy. with the school therapist working
in cooperation with the student's private speech therapist.

3. Special supervision during mealtime.

4. Appropriately supervised outside recreational activities.
during the same play periods as the regular school population.

5. A classroom wdth a suitable student-teacher ratio and other
autistic children. preferably at the same educational level. The
classroom teacher to be trained and/or experienced in working with

autistic children.

95

The local hearing officer ruled as follows:

1. The student requires a highly structured and individualized
educational plan with particular attention to the degree of super-
vision and coordination of services offered.

2. That he be placed with students whose level of functioning
in the area of speech and language will allow him to interact on a
level commensurate with his expected level of performance.

3. That the teacher responsible for the classroom instruction
review the teaching strategies employed in the previous assignment
in order to ensure continuity of program.

4. That the services of a school social worker be employed in
order to foster a coordinated effort between the home and school.

5. The services of a trained physical therapist. knowledgeable
of the specific problems of autistic children. to provide physical
therapy services. and to work in cooperation with the private
physical therapist.

6. Continued speech therapy. and cooperation between the
school speech therapist and the student's private speech therapist.

7. Special supervision and attention during mealtime.

8. Physical education and outside recreational activities.
with appropriate supervision. during the same play periods in which
the balance of the school population is using the outside recrea-
tional area.

9. A classroom situation with a suitable student-teacher
ratio. preferably at the same educational level. The classroom
teacher should be trained and/or experienced in working with
autistic children.

10. The above educational activities should be located in a
conventional school setting rather than isolating the student in a
school reserved for emotionally impaired students only.

The local hearing officer's decision was not appealed by either

party. See EI ill (1979) for a follow-up of this case.

W
This case was appealed by the parents because they felt their

child should be designated as severely multiply impaired rather than

emotionally impaired. and placed in an appropriate program to meet her
multiple needs. which would not be met in the recommended program for
the emotionally impaired. The-local hearing officer ruled in favor of

the school for placement in a classroom for the emotionally impaired.

96

The state hearing officer ruled that the child should be
designated as severely multiply impaired. The rationale for this
decision included medical evidence of organic brain dysfunction.
psychomotor seizures. and significant neurological deficits. The state
hearing officer ruled that this evidence indicated that the student met
the definition of physically or otherwise health impaired.

Evidence of the student's cognitive level indicated a
functional level in the severely retarded range or trainable mentally
impaired range. The state hearing officer ruled that based on
evaluations presented as evidence. the child would meet the criteria
of trainable and/or educable mentally impaired. and the combination of
physically or otherwise health impaired and mentally impaired meets the
criteria for designation as severely multiply impaired.

The state hearing officer indicated that although evidence and
testimony were indicative of a strong emotional overlay in the childus
behavior and functional abilities. the emotional difficulties could not
be seen as the cause of the seizure disorder.

It was also determined by the state hearing officer that place-
ment in a program for the emotionally impaired would be inappropriate.
Evidence and testimony indicated that abrupt changes in the environment
appeared to provoke the seizure disorder. and it was felt by the state
hearing officer that a classroom for the emotionally impaired would not
be conducive to appropriate programming for a child with such multiple

disabilities.

97

This decision by the state hearing officer reversed the local
hearing officer's decision. which stated that the student "has shown
additional growth and improvement when placed in an Emotional Impaired
program; thus. because of ability to function in an emotionally
impaired classroom. she cannot be classified as Severely Multiply
Impaired."

Although the state hearing officer did not rule that the
student should be placed in a program for SXI students. the following
criteria were to be taken into consideration in planning an appropriate
program:

1. A structured. positive. non-disruptive environment

2. A small class enrollment

3. Close adult supervision

4. Availability of medical supervision (via health related

personnel for medication. observation and reporting or nurse)

5. Teaching staff knowledgeable about seizure disorders and

familiar with medical terminology and medication side effects.

6. A structured approach to learning tasks.

7. Carefully designed behavior modification program for
operant behavior control.

8. Grouped with cognitive and social level peers (upper TMI or
lower EMI level).

W

This lengthy (five sessions) and complex hearing involved a 12-
year-old autistic child. The local hearing decision was appealed by
the school district. In a pre-hearing conference held before the local
hearing. four issues were agreed upon for resolution. Both the local
and state hearing decisions will be discussed for each of the four

issues individually.

98

155u2_£l: Whether the behavioral goal regarding learning the
proper use of eating utensils is appropriate.

Both the local and state hearing officers ruled that the goal
was appropriate as part of the instruction to be provided. The local
hearing officer also stated that he did not have Jurisdiction to rule
upon the issue of who should pay for the food so the goal could be
implemented. but directed the parent to pay the daily cost for lunch
until the issue was resolved by seeking counsel from the Attorney
General or Department of Education. If the parent prevailed upon
resolution of the dispute. the local hearing officer stated that total
reimbursement should then be made by the school district to the parent.

The decision of the state hearing officer negated the local
hearing officer's directive that reimbursement for costs of food pro-
vided by the parents be made if the parents prevailed upon resolution
of the dispute. The provision of food was stated to be a responsi-
bility of the parent.

Included in the rationale for this decision was the statement

that

The three basic physical necessities of life are food. clothing and
shelter. It is an "understood" that the assumption of the respon-
sibilities of parenting includes the provision of these basic
necessities for survival. When such necessities cannot be met by
the parent specific local. state and federal agencies have the
responsibility and authority to provide or assist in the provision
of these basic necessities. The school is not one of these spe-
cific agencies. although it may become one through the application
and implementation of a federal hot lunch program through which
children not appropriately provided for may be fed without cost to
the parents.

99

Issue_£2: Is the goal size "To build a sign vocabulary
consisting of five words . . ." appropriate?

The local hearing officer ruled that this goal was appropriate.
but that there be no limitation on the expansion of the current sign
vocabulary goal. It was also ruled that both the school district and
the parent must take steps to observe the student signing in the
other's environment.

The state hearing officer supported the decision that the goal
was appropriate but modified the local decision relative to observation
of signing by both the parent and school personnel. The state hearing
officer directed that a parent liaison person be assigned the responsi-
bility of observing the student at least three times within the home
and three times within the school setting to determine "the method of
communicating. the purpose for communicating. and frequency of communi-
cation for the purpose of establishing a partial basis for goal deter-
mination." The decision stated that "The selection of a third party to
observe the signing (communication) behavior in both settings gives a
basis for consistency in interpretation of communication behavior."

15M: Whether the 180 days of programming and related
services is appropriate.

On this issue the local hearing officer first stated that both
state and federal law require a program designed to meet individual
needs. It was stated that whether the standard is "appropriate” or
"develop the maximum potential" was irrelevant. for some programs may

need to exceed 180 days.

100

The local hearing officer ruled that the current lBO-day
program was not appropriate because it does not provide any program or
services over the summer break. It was also stated by the local
hearing officer that a 230-day program with a continuation of the
typical classroom program is not appropriate. based on the fact that
the child is a severely autistic student whose progress has been. and
would probably continue to be. very slow.

By so extending the school year. I find that we would in all
likelihood only be offering the opportunity for more "slow prog-
ress" and for certain losing a large opportunity to try new and
different things to generalize his skills and behaviors to his home
and other non-school environments.

The school district was directed by the local hearing officer
to provide a summer program of not less than six weeks (30 school days)
of a "variety of enriching experiences such as camping. field trips.
swimming. other sports. playground activities. recreational activities.
gardening and work skills training)‘ In addition. the school district
was to provide parental consultation support during the summer when the
above-mentioned experiences were being provided. A qualified profes-
sional person familiar with the plan was to make weekly phone contacts
with the parents and visit the home at least once each month.

The state hearing officer supported the local hearing decision
directing the school district to provide six weeks of enrichment
activities over the summer. In addition. the state hearing officer
extended the local hearing officer's directive into a second summer.

unless other alternative programs were devised and implemented to

better meet the student's needs.

IOI

Issue_£4: If a special education program and/or related
services beyond 180 days is deemed appropriate. must transportation
also be provided?

The local hearing officer ruled that the school district was
obligated to provide transportation for the directed program. including
travel to and from such activities. and in and about such activities.

The state hearing officer upheld the local hearing decision.

W

This case involved the suspension of a high school student and
the circumstances leading to the suspension. The student involved was
one of six students involved in illegal acts (theft).

The parents took the position that their child should not be
out of school when others in the group of six involved in illegal acts
were back in school. 'The parents claimed that they also did not know
about the board of education meeting at which it voted to expel the
student. School personnel stated that procedures before the expulsion
were in full compliance with State Department of Education require-
ments.

The local hearing officer stated that the following two tests
were to be applied to the procedures used in this case. (1) Was
consideration given to the student's handicap by the Educational
Planning and Placement Committee before its recommendation for
expulsion? (2) Was due process followed in connection with the board

action recommending expulsion?

102

The local hearing officer determined that the proceedings of
the EPPC. which recommended a change in educational status. and the
meeting of the board of education. which passed a resolution expelling
the student. were so flawed as to declare the actions of both null and
void. The student was to be readmitted to the program for emotionally
impaired students.

It was recommended by the local hearing officer that if the
school district considered expulsion of this student in the future. a
report be prepared for the newly convened EPPC. which detailed the
specific actions for which expulsion was being considered and the
nature of the student's participation. It was also recommended that if
expulsion was considered in the future. a new psychological evaluation
be conducted to determine the present nature of the student's emotional
impairment and its relationship to his behavior. and that any action by
the board of education be scheduled so that an opportunity to appeal

the proposed action was provided. There was no appeal.

W

The issue in this case was the particular program in which a
student should be placed. The school district wanted the autistic
student removed from the current program within a given school and
placed in either of two alternative programs in different schools. The
parents wanted the student to remain in his present program. This case
was (apparently) difficult because of a paucity of students identified

as autistic. The school district agreed to cooperate with the parents

103

and their representative in an effort to locate more students who would
be appropriately placed in a program serving autistic students.

The local hearing officer ruled that the student should be
removed from his current program and placed in an alternative program
as recommended by the school. even though

The hearing officer does not believe that either program. either
the one in which the student is now placed nor the program which is
recommended for the fall. are completely suited to this student.
However. in the interest in having this student obtain his maximum
potential. it is believed that the change in program as suggested
will best suit the student at this time.

The state hearing officer ruled that the student must be placed
in a classroom program that meets his particular needs and that place-
ment must take the following into account:

1. Placement must be made with students relatively close to
the same cognitive. developmental. and age level of functioning.

2. Instruction must be in a supportive classroom environment
and from someone trained to deal with the multiplicity of handicaps
this student has.

3. The classroom and school environment must diminish the
possibility of the student being a scapegoat through preventative
planning.

4. Speech services must be continued as necessary along with
other support services required.

It was noted by the state hearing officer that "a hearing
officer does not pick the specific building or classroom that a student

will enter. but rather deals with classification and the type of

programming that a youngster would need to best meet his/her particular

104

needs." The school district was given 30 days to place the student in
a program that met the requirements of the state hearing officerks

decision.

W

School personnel developed an individualized education program
for a high school student which they felt met his individual needs.

The program consisted of a combination of regular and special education
classes. The parents questioned the appropriateness of the recommended
classes and asked for a hearing. Before the hearing the parents'
attorney and the director of special education for the school district
agreed to "develop a new appropriate IEP during the hearing)‘ The
parents stated that a new plan should be developed based on new test
information.

Both parties also agreed to the need for new testing to
determine current cognitive functioning levels. The local hearing
officer ordered that new testing be done immediately and the results be
provided to him before the writing of the final hearing decision.

After reviewing testimony and the new evaluation data. the local
hearing officer then suggested a schedule of five specific classes for
each semester of the forthcoming school year. with the sixth hour to be
filled with an elective or used for coordination and counseling.

The parents appealed the local hearing decision and requested a

state-level hearing review on the basis of four issues. Each issue

105

will be presented separately as stated in the state hearing officerus
report. along with the state hearing officer's decision.

Issue_£1: "The local hearing officer did not direct the School
District to convene an IEP meeting for the purpose of developing goals
and objectives (as specified under l21a.346 of PL 94-142) as a result
of and contingent with his class selection ruling."

The state hearing officer supported the local hearing officerks
selection of classes as being appropriate and directed the school
district to hold an IEP meeting within 15 days for the purpose of
developing the content (goals and objectives) of the program offerings.

lssne_£2: "The options presented by the local hearing officer
as alternative consideration for a 6th school offering were undefini-
tive and created confusion in interpretation)‘

The state hearing officer ruled that for the sixth period each
day the student shall be assigned to a teacher (either a classroom
teacher or a teacher consultant) certified in the area of learning
disabilities for the following purposes:

a. to provide the coordination between student. teachers and
parents necessary to this student (a monitoring and reporting
activity).

b. to provide consultation service to the regular classroom
teachers of this student and all other personnel involved with this
student relative to the appropriate methods and material for
instruction necessary to his needs.

c. to assist the student directly in the organization of his
class materials. to ascertain his understanding of assignments and
to assist him in developing methods of approach for assignment
completion. '

d. to work directly with the student in an instructional manner
on those assignments. subjects or in those areas which pose
difficulties for him--keeping in mind this student's needs in
verbal communication. reading and memory skill development.

106

e. to know the student and assist in the initial and on-going
development of IEP's appropriate to this student's needs as he
progresses through high school.

Issue_£3: "The local hearing officer alluded to the specific
kinds of learning difficulties experienced by the student and directed
teaching personnel responsible for the student to be aware of these
difficulties and to plan accordingly. but did not specify any specific
person responsible to ensure that this indeed would happen."

The state hearing officer ruled that the state decision
rendered on issue #2 speaks to issue #3 as well.

Issue_£g: "The local hearing officer did not follow
recommended and/or defined hearing procedures in the completion of his
duties."

On this point the state hearing officer stated that "the alleged

procedural irregularities of the local hearing officer did not have a

negative impact on the ability to render a judicious decision."

W

School personnel recommended that this elementary LD student
continue in his present program. which consisted of teacher consultant
services. 'The assigned teacher consultant met regularly with the
general education teacher for programming consistency. Both the
teacher consultant and general education teacher met frequently with
the parents during the school year. The parents disagreed with the
recommendation to continue this program. stating that their child
needed a qualified tutor in the general education setting for at least

three half days per week.

107

The local hearing officer ruled that there was sufficient
evidence that the current program being provided was effective because
the student had made at least a year's growth in academic achievement
during the preceding year. Therefore. the additional tutoring as
requested by the parents was not appropriate.

In their appeal. the parents identified two individual issues.
These will be presented separately. along with the state hearing
officer's decision.

W: The parents appealed the local hearing officer's
decision to deny their request for the additional services of a quali-
fied tutor for at least three half days per week within the regular
classroom setting.

The state hearing officer also denied the request for the
tutor. stating that "the additional labelling of this child as 'lesser
than' because of an attached tutor within the classroom is considered
potentially damagingJ‘ In the decision it was also stated that "A
qualified tutor assigned to a handicapped child within the regular
classroom setting for any significant period of time appears. in the
opinion of the State Hearing Officer. to be a misinterpretation of the
concept of least restrictive environment."

W: The parents appealed the local hearing officer's
decision that the present program of services is appropriate for
meeting their child's needs. The parents also contended that the

amount of time their child spent with the teacher consultant for

108

learning disabilities was not as great as the reported 2-l/2 hours per
week.
The state hearing officer ruled that the student

shall be placed in an appropriate regular classroom and
consideration shall be given to a change in the amount of time of
instruction given by a qualified teacher of the learning disabled .
. . and that this time of instruction shall not be less than l-l/2
hours daily. five days a week. nor more than l/2 a school day. five
days per week.

The provision of the services was to be from either a teacher consult-

ant or a classroom program. as determined by the local school district.

mun-mm

The child in this case had been identified as a seven and a
half year old with a "severe aphasia-like disorder primarily affecting
her expressive language)‘ The parents maintained that the child needed
a highly structured classroom with a small number of students. as well
as extensive speech and language therapy daily on a one-to-one basis
and in the classroom setting. It was the parents' contention that the
classroom as recommended by the school did not meet these standards.

In addition. the parents stated that in their earlier search for an
appropriate program they had been denied due process and were therefore
entitled to damages for expenses incurred.

The school district argued that the resource room program that
was recommended "is the best type of service that the school district
can offer." It was further stated that

It is the position of the school district that the Hearing Officer
in this matter should be limited to determining whether the

classification of the student has been proper; that it is not the
duty of the Hearing Officer to determine whether the program

109

offered for that handicap could be improved; nor is it the function
of the Hearing Officer to determine whether by adding program or
staff. that the services offered to a particular student could be
improved.
The school district also maintained that the hearing officer was not
authorized to order damages for violation of alleged due process.

The local hearing officer stated that Rule 340.l724 of the
Michigan Special Education Code. which outlines the procedures for
hearings. deals only with inquiring into "a proposed educational
placement or change in the educational status of a handicapped personJ'
Since nothing in that rule referred to an inquiry into due process or
the awarding of damages. the hearing officer stated that he had no
power to deal with those questions.

The local hearing officer also ruled that he was obligated to
"receive and act on evidence as to whether or not a proposed program
meets the needs of a particular handicapped personJ' Therefore. it was
determined that a hearing officer has the authority to rule on the
adequacy of a program offered and. if need be. to recommend alternative
programming.

In this case the question arose as to the responsibility for
starting a new program in the area in which the child lived. There was
evidence that in one area of the intermediate school district a program
existed for severely language impaired students. but that program was
not available to students living in a different area of the same
intermediate school district. The hearing officer ruled that this

circumstance obligated him to determine whether this student needed a

similar program. and therefore ruled that he had the authority to

110

consider the question of proper programming and. if necessary. to
recommend that a new program be established.

It was determined by the local hearing officer that this child
needed a structured classroom for the learning disabled for at least
one-half of each school day. geared specifically to the language
handicap. It was ruled that the recommended resource room program did
not meet the needs of this particular child and therefore was not
appropriate. The school district was directed by the local hearing
officer to take the initiative in working with the intermediate school
district to pursue the matter of creating a low-incidence program in a
specific area of the intermediate school district to meet the particu-
lar needs of this student and other children with similar impairments
residing in the same geographic area.

The parents appealed the local hearing officer‘s decision on
the basis of two issues. These issues are presented separately. along
with the state hearing officer's decision.

W: "The local hearing officer's decision was unclear
regarding:

a. ‘the length of time the child was to be placed in a Learning
Disabilities classroom.

b. the qualifications of the classroom teacher.

c. the extent of speech and language services."

In the time span between the local hearing decision and the
state decision. the student was placed in a program for learning dis-

abled students. In response to Issue la. the state hearing officer

111

supported the local hearing officer's decision for placement in a
learning disabilities program for one-half of each school day. with a
small group of peers of approximately the same age level.

Relative to Issue lb. the state hearing officer ruled that the
current teacher was fully approved as a teacher of the learning
disabled and that a review of her training program indicated that she
had an appropriate background in language development and problems to
understand and work with the teacher of the speech and language
impaired.

In response to Issue lc. the state hearing officer directed
that speech and language services be provided on a one-to-one and
small-group basis by the teacher of the speech and language impaired
for 20 minutes daily. five days a week. Consultation was also to be
provided to the classroom teacher relative to incorporating language
and language development into the academic area covered in the class-
room.

[Issu§_tz: "The local hearing officer did not deal
satisfactorily with the issues of:

a. agency responsibility for program development as mandated
by PA l98 and PL 94-142 (local and 180 plans).

b. alleged denial of Free Appropriate Public Education to
this child in the past.

c. the restitution of educational costs to the parents
relative to this alleged denial of past special education
services."

The state hearing officer responded by stating that these

issues cannot be dealt with through the hearing process. but appear to

112

be appropriate for the complaint procedure as identified in Rule

340.185l of the Michigan Special Education Code.

Wow

The issues in this case were identification and free
appropriate public education. The parents felt that their child was
learning disabled and speech and language impaired. Although school
personnel felt that the child met the requirements for eligibility as
learning disabled. they felt that the primary disability was educable
mentally impaired. The issue of appropriate programming included the
amount of speech and language therapy. a motor-development program. and
the length of the school day.

The local hearing officer determined that the child's needs
could best be met through the designation of educable mentally
impaired. even though it was clearly shown that the child could also
meet the eligibility requirements for designation as a learning
disabled child. This decision was based on the belief that the LD
designation would not provide any advantage for the student at this
point in time.

Relative to the speech and language issue. the local hearing
officer recommended that sessions with the speech and language
therapist be increased from two times per week to as many as four times
weekly.

The local hearing officer also recommended that a graduated
motor-development program be designed for this student by an

occupational therapist for implementation by the classroom teacher and

113

aide. Progress was to be monitored by the occupational therapist. It
was also suggested by the local hearing officer that an attempt be made
to increase the school day gradually from the current half-day
attendance.

On appeal by the parents. the state hearing officer determined
that although this student could meet the definition of learning
disabled. educable mentally impaired. and speech and language impaired.
the most appropriate designation at this time is learning disabled.
This was based on the belief that this designation was the least
restrictive alternative.

The state hearing officer basically agreed with the local
hearing officer on the programming issues. but did make the following
specific recommendations not found in the local hearing decision:

1. The student will be placed with a classroom teacher and in

a program equipped to deal with her multiple needs.

2. Teacher consultant services from a consultant in the area
of educable mentally impaired will be available to assist the
classroom teacher on at least a weekly basis.

3. There will be four sessions with the speech and language
therapist weekly. and the classroom teacher will provide
supplemental language development activities in the classroom.

4. The student should attend school in the fall on the same
basis as other children her age.

W

This case involved a nine-year-old child who had been receiving
special education services since the age of three and a half years. In
the preceding four or five years. a number of professionals in educa-
tion and medicine provided evaluations to give further insight into

this child. Results indicated that the child functioned cognitively at

11“

the borderline level between EMI and TMI. Other difficulties included
coordination problems. impulsivity. impaired visual motor development.
and an expressive language disability.

At an EPPC meeting it was recommended that the intermediate
school district provide a program that took into account specific
strengths and weaknesses of the child and included peer stimulation.
speech and language therapy. and fine and gross motor development
activities.

The parents disagreed with the recommendation. contending that
the program offered was not appropriate because the student could not
benefit from it without the additional structure that a 24-hour
residential facility would provide. Before this hearing. the parents
had enrolled their child in a private residential school.

The local hearing officer ruled that the program recommended by
the intermediate school district deserved to be tried and that the need
for residential placement in order to benefit from the recommended
program was not appropriate and did not meet the least restrictive
environment requirement. The parents appealed this ruling. contending
that the proposed program was not appropriate. and if a school district
cannot educate a child appropriately. it must then place the child in a
private school at no cost to the parents.

The state hearing officer ruled that the studentfls needs could
be met by a program provided by the intermediate school district and
directed the 150 to address the following needs of the child in the

plan for program and services:

115

l. A structured learning environment.

2. Small instructional group with peers of similar cognitive
functional level (not more than 3 in the group).

3. Concrete repetitive methodology.

4. A behavioral management system within the classroom.

5. Speech and language development services.

6. Fine motor development activities.

7. Gross motor development opportunities.

8. Planned opportunities for peer (functional level) language
and social skill stimulation activities and interaction.

9. Pre-orientation of child and structured methodology in
facilitating any changes in educational scheduling. personnel. or
environmentr-if such need arises in the program designed to meet
the listed needs of this child.

10. Progressive opportunities to interact with normal peers of
similar age group in selected activities.

The state hearing officer also ruled that a residential place-
ment was not necessary for the student to benefit from the educational
program. It was stated in the hearing decision that it was not the
responsibility of the educational agency to provide a structured living
environment conducive to the monitoring of a child's behavior outside
the educational setting and that the state hearing officer does not
have authority over issues under the responsibility of other depart-

ments within the state or community services.

W

This case involved the suspension and pending expulsion of a
lQ-year-old TMI student. The major issue was whether or not due
process rights had been violated. The school district initially
suspended the student for 10 days and began proceedings for expulsion.
including an EPPC meeting. The parents appealed the expulsion
recommendation. When it became apparent that a due process hearing

could not be held within the time frame of the current 10-day

116

suspension. the district requested and received an extension of the
existing lO-day suspension from the State Department of Education.
allowing the suspension to continue for another 21 days.

The local hearing officer ruled that although the area is
somewhat."grayfl'tne state acted properly in allowing the school dis-
trict to deviate from the time line for holding hearings and extending
the suspension. The hearing officer went on to state:

However. the courts have generally held that it is improper to
provide sequential ten day periods which are tantamount to
"informal" exclusion. As a definite hearing date had been set at
this time. the intent of the parties is not suspect. However.
under the rule of 6055 v. Lopez (1975). in not providing a hearing
on suspension for each ten day period or increment. rights to due
process were violated.

The local hearing officer also stated that due process rights
were violated when an opportunity to be heard was not provided to the
student and parents when the board acted upon the initial lO-day
suspension. The due process hearing appeal provided under the special
education rules does not preclude or replace due process rights before

the board of education. The suspension was to be terminated immedi-

ately. There was no appeal.

W

The parents'unajor concern in this case was that the
recommended placement posed a potential health hazard for their child
because the program was located in a residential facility. The parents
cited Section 121a.552d (Placement) of PL 94-142. which states. "In

selecting the least restrictive environment. consideration is given to

117

any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services
which he or she needs."

The center program in which the child had been placed was being
closed down. so the school recommended placement in a program housed
within an institution. The parents contended that their child was very
susceptible to infection. there were many children from the institu-
tion attending the same school. and one classroom at the institution
was observed to be in quarantine with hepatitis and scabies. In addi—
tion. the parents felt that the health of the institutionalized child-
ren was not monitored as closely as those children living in a family
setting. and therefore there was a greater possibility of infection
being transmitted to their child.

The local hearing officer ruled in favor of the placement as
recommended by the school. since sufficient evidence was not presented
to support the parents' concern that the health of their child would be

in jeopardy. There was no appeal.

W

This case involved a preschool child for whom the school
district recommended a program consisting of 4-1/2 hours per month of
evaluation and consultation contacts. The parents disagreed with this
recommendation. stating that Rule 340.1748 (Severely Multiply Impaired
Programs) required direct service and not just consultation and
evaluation contacts. The parents further contended that the program

delivery system was based on program availability and not individual

118

needs. Also questioned was the lack of occupational and physical
therapy services.

The school maintained that their program was a team approach
aimed at interrelating all services to meet the objectives determined
to be appropriate to meet the child's needs. It was also stated that
future programming would be developed and made available when it was
determined by the educational staff that it would be of more value and
not cause separation anxiety. The school also maintained that
occupational and physical therapy services being provided by outside
agencies were to increase physical functioning and not related to
educational needs.

The local hearing officer ruled that the continued program as
recommended by the school was appropriate for that time. It was stated
that this program delivery system was not in violation of Rule 340.1748
because that rule addressed in-school programs. More involvement from
the speech and language therapist was deemed appropriate. The parents
appealed the local hearing officer's decision.

The state hearing officer's decision was divided into two
parts. Part one pertained to programming from receipt of the decision
(May) until the opening of school the following September. Part two
pertained to programming to begin in September of the following school
year. The state hearing decision primarily supported the parents'
position. Parts 1 and 2 of the state-level decision are presented

separately below:

119

Part 1 (from May until the following September):

1. Center program contact was to increase from one contact per
month to one half day per week. for the provision of consultation.
staffing. programming. instruction. and direct occupational. physi-
cal. and speech therapy.

2. Home teaching visits were to continue at the rate of one
contact per week.

3. Occupational and physical therapy was to be provided
directly at least once per week.

4. Speech and language services were to be provided directly
by the teacher of the speech and language impaired on a weekly basis
at the center program.

5. Educational staff was to develop a plan with the parents to
facilitate the child's ability to separate.

Part 2 (from September throughout the school year):

1. The center-based program was to increase to a minimum of
three half days per week. As quickly as possible this should
increase to five days per week. but the timetable was left to the
discretion of the school and parents.

2. The program shall promote interaction with the child's
peers. defined as children with reasonably similar levels of
functioning in the cognitive. affective. and psychomotor domains.

3. The program provided shall adhere to all parts and
subparts of Rule 340.1748 except part b. which requires a 230-day
program. The student shall attend school for a 46-week duration.
but shall not attend less than 3-1/2 days per week.

4. Physical. occupational. and speech therapy shall be offered
at least twice weekly on a direct basis.

W

A breakdown of the major issues around which hearings were held

during 1978 is shown in Table 5. It should again be noted that the

total number of issues is far greater than the total number of hearings

held. This is due to the fact that any one hearing may be centered on

any one of the four major issues. all of the issues. or any combination

thereof.

As depicted in Table 5. placement was the issue involved in the

most hearings (68%) during 1978. More than half of the 34 hearings

120

(59%) involved an issue concerning a free appropriate public education.
Five hearings (14%) pertained to an identification issue. whereas only
one hearing involved a dispute over evaluation. As was the case in
1977. the primary issues involved in hearings held during 1978 were

placement and free appropriate public education.

Table 5.--Breakdown of issues and hearings by disability and hearing

 

 

number--l978.

Issues Hearings Involved Totals
Identification £1 I4. #7; LD #1; EMI I2; SMI I2 5 (14%)
Evaluation EI 15 l ( 3%)
Placement E1 #1. #2. #3. #4. #6. #7. #9. I10. I11. 23 (68%)

#13; L0 #1: ’6; SXI ’1: ’2; EMI #19 ’3;
TMI #1; HI ’1) #2: ’3: ’4; SMI ’1: ’2

FAPE E1 ’8: ’11: #12: ’13; L0 ’29 ’3: ’4: ’5: 20 (59%)
’6; EMI ’10 ’29 ’3; TMI ’2; HI ’1: ’2:
I4; POHI #1. #2; SXI fl. #2

 

Table 6 illustrates parent representation at the 34 local
hearings held in 1978. In 1978. parents represented themselves in 35%
of the hearings. Advocates represented parents in nine cases. or 26%
of the time. Parents chose to be represented by an attorney in seven
hearings. or 21% of the time. In one hearing the parent was not
represented at all. and in five hearings (15%) the parent representa-

tion was unknown.

121

Table 6.--Parent representation at hearings--l978.

 

 

Parent Representation Number of Hearings
Attorney 7 (21%)
Advocate 9 (26%)
Self 12 (35%)

Not represented l ( 3%)
Unknown 5 (15%)
Totals 34 (100%)

 

Table 7 illustrates school district representations at the 34
local hearings held in 1978. In 1978. directors of special education
represented school districts in just under one-third of the hearings
(32%). Attorneys were used in only 15% of the cases. and superin-
tendents represented their districts in only three cases (9%). In six
of the hearings (18%). the school district representative was not
known. Of the nine other representatives. three were directors of
pupil personnel. two were supervisors of TMI programs. and two were
intermediate school district consultants. In one hearing the school
district was represented by the supervisor of a program for the hearing
impaired. In the remaining case the school district representative was
the director of elementary education.

Table 8 illustrates hearing decisions at both the local and
state levels. As can be seen. local hearing officer decisions
supported the school district position 53% of the time. Local hearing

decisions supported the parent/student in 38% of the hearings. In

122

three of the local hearings (9%). the hearing officer incorporated

parts of both positions.

Table 7.--School district representation at hearings--1978.

 

School District Representation

Number of Hearings

 

 

 

 

Attorney 5 (15%)
Superintendent 3 ( 9%)
Director of special education 11 (32%)
Other 9 (26%)
Unknown 6 (18%)
Totals 34 (100%)
Table 8.--Hearing decisions--l978.
Decision Number Favored Favored Incorp.
Rendered Appealed School Parent Both
Supported
school 18 (53%) 10 (56%) 6 (60%) (20%) 2 (20%)
Supported
parents 13 (38%) 5 (38%) ... 5 (100%) ...
Incorporated
both positions 3 ( 9%) 3 (100%) l (33%) (67%) ...
Totals 34 (100%) 18 (53%) 7 (39%) (50%) 2 (11%)

 

123

Of the 34 local hearings held in 1978. 18 of them (53%) were
appealed. In 10 of those that were appealed (56%). the local hearing
decision supported the school. Of those 10. the state hearing officer
also supported the school in 6 of the 10 appeals. or 60% of the time.
In two cases.(20%) the state hearing decision favored the parent posi-
tion. and the other two times (20%) parts of both positions were incor-
porated into the state decision.

0f the 13 local hearing decisions that favored the parent.
five (38%) were appealed. In all five cases the state hearing officer
also ruled in favor of the parent position.

In 1978. 3 (9%) of the 34 local hearing decisions incorporated
parts of both the school and parent positions. All three of these
decisions were appealed. In one case'(33%) the state hearing officer
ruled in favor of the school. The state decision in the other two

cases (67%) was in favor of the parent position.

124

COLUMNAR PRESENTATION OF
ISSUES. POSITIONS. AND
DECISIONS--1979

1225

.zo.»uon o>.»o..oc :. oov:.oc.o

 

.>.on

-noooc voEoou no noo.>
-.on .oo.oo.ozo>n» vco
.oocov.:u .z.03 .o.oon
o>.ooo. oco Eo.o0.» ..
voc.o»coo-..on o c. oooo.»
oz o.:ozn »zoos»n oz»
..oozon oz» oo.o>o.

.c. o»o».o.»

-.o» zo.v..zo ..o »oz» so.»
.0.» co.»oo:oo .oco.»co>coo
.oono oz» c. >.co o»o»
-.u.».o» n.zozn »cov:»n oz»

.n»co6co..>co o>.»o..»no.
nno. o. >.o»o..»0.»»o
:0.»oc:. 0» o.zoca n. »cov
-:»n onnoooz o»o..»o.»»o
n. eo.uo.» .u voz.o»c0o
-..on o z. »coeooo.»

.»coE

-co..>co o>.»o..»no.
»noo. oz» .>..oo...o
-o»m .»cooo»n .u ooo.»
-z»n o .o. »coeooo.»
.0:0.»oo:vo o»o..»0.»»<

an.»
.n»\.

 

.co.n.ooo n..oo...o
m:..ooz .ooo. o.oz»z

.>.onnoooz

>.o»a.0nzo eoz: N.c0
vo>o.»eo oz u.:ozn »oz
.25 oz» :0 »coGooocoE .0—
->ozoz .0. so.oo.» .o»o»
o .0 ».o» o.zo:0noo.

o n. oo.>ov »c.o.»no. <
..oozon oz» vo.0>o.

.nono».:» »coe

oouocoE .0.>ozoz .0. not.)
-0.» oz n.zozn »covco»»o

.0 oo.o co »oz» oovco»:oo
eco .oo.>oo ac.c.o.»no. .0
.»c... »co .3380 3.5:» oz»

.eo»n>n »z.o.»n

-o. .o o»>» o£0n >0.»Eo

o» >.onnoooc n. ». .n.oz»o
eco ..o>..o oz» ...ono.z

o» .oozov o one» »oz» n.o.
->ozoz o.zo»o.vo.»za 0» oz»

»o..zo

o.»n.»:o v.0-.oo>-o. o
.o co.»o».o»nzo.» oz» :.
so.oo.» .o»o» o .0 ».o»
no Eo»n>n »z.o.»no. o
on: o» o»o..»o.»»o ». n.
.>..oo...uo»n .co.»oo:oo
o..z:» o»o..»o.»»o oo..

«\N

 

.oozo. zm_z

oz» »o {00.nno.o

.u ooc.o»c00-..on o

.»ooo.» oz “..oozn »co.»
-n»n oz» »oz» vo.:¢

.n»co.o» oz» vo.o>o.

..oo...0 mo..ooz oz»

.0 5.35: oz» c.z».3
»0: no: n.z» »oz» m:.»o»n
.c0.»o00. .08o.m0.» o...»
-o»n>co>..»cov...o>o30z
.»oz o.o .oo...o oz..ooz
.ooo. oz» .o»o..»o.»»o

n. oo..o»e. >..oco.»oeo
oz» .0. so.mo.» ooz.o»z0o
-..on o c. »cosooo..
.n»co.o» oz» uo.0>o.

..oozo. so.» oz»

n.z».z so.mo.» .u ooc.o»c00
-..on o :. oz v.30zn

.oo» .00zon mc.30..o. oz»
.0. »cosooo.» .o»o..»o.»
-»o »o: n. oz.»»on .oozon
.oe.0c oz» £0.. »ozo »coE
.co..>co o>.»o..»no. o.oa <

.oovcoe
-eooo. no: ..o».»noz o»o»n
o .o noose.» oz» :0 oo»ooo.
£3.90.» o...oo»n < .»zoe
-co..>co o>.»o..»no. o.oe
o o..:0o. 30c nuooz n.z uco
.oz.»o.o..o»oo n. .oozon c.
oocoe.o..o» n.»co0:»n oz»

.»coeooo.»

»o..»n.v .ooo. nan.o>
.o».»noz o»o»n .>..o
-o...uoan .»coea». zn_z
.0.:aa o .0. »coEco.
-.>co o>.»o..»no. »noo.
oz» n. Eo.mo.» »ozz

oco .»coeooo.» .oc0.»oo
onto .0 nnoco»o..»o.»»<

nxa

 

.vo...»coo. 0n n»cou:»n
ac.>.on Eo.mo.» o c.
touo.» uco oo..o»£. >..o
-cO.»0£o no no...»cov.
oz n.zozn »cov:»n oz»
..oozun oz» 0o.0>o.

.»coo

-:»n vo..o»£. >..oc0.»0§o
co no »coEooo.» too :0.»
-oo...»cot. n»co..o3 »oz»
oo.ooo o 0» uo..o»s. >..o
-co.»oeo »oc n. u..zo ..oz»

.vo..o»E. >..oc0.»0£o

oz» .0. £0.00.» .oozon

o z. oooo.» eco oo..o»

-E. >..oco.»oso no no...»
.coo. oz o.:ozn »cov:»n oz»

.»coEooo.» »coacon

-z:n vco ..u »oc nan.o>
.u .>..oo...oo»m .»0z
u.0-.oo>-N. o .0 »cos
-ooo.» .»co co.»oo...»coo.

auxm

 

.onoo n.z» .0
cc.»oco.»xo .oz».:.
.0. .u .u .0. co.»
-oon o>.»o..oc oom
.co.n.ooo n..ou...0
m:..ooz .ooo. v.oz»:

X

.o»o..»o.»»o n.
>..oc oo.>.on ».o»»:n
.0 n.zoz ~ z».3 ouo.»

z». oz» z. »coeooo.»
.023 oz» 3.0.3.

.»cos»n:»oo .oc0n

-.o» oco nno.oo.» 0.2ovooo
o»oo..0ncoo o» ooze..o oco
ooo.» z»z oz» :. ooc.o»
-o. oz o.:ozn o..zo ..oz»

.>..ou noo.>.on ».o»»:n

.u .o n.zoz ~ .0 e:e.xoe o
o>.ooo. n.zozn »cov:»n oz»
.»coo:»n oz» .0 n»no.o»c.
»noz oz» c. zoo o»o..»0.»»o
no: .020... 0.3:» oz» c.
ooo.» z»» oz» :. »coeooo.»

.»coEooo.»

ovo.» no: oann. >.oe..»
..oozon o»o>..» o c.
ouo.» z»z oz» c. oo..o.
-co >.»co..:o »cooo»n

o .o. »coeooo.» .oco.»oo
-:vo .0 nnoco»o..»o.»»<

.n\.

o.

 

co.n.uoo oxm

 

 

02 no»
vo.oo»»<

 

co.n.uoa oz»

 

co.».n0» »co.o»

 

co_»_oo. .oozon

 

.0:
oc..oox

 

 

oo._ooo_ >__oco_»os»
«um.

1226

 

.zoz.>o.»

o.oz »oz» »oz» oon .o»o
-..»0.»»o zoEooz ...zco
.ono .oo.o0.o.:oc .o\zco
.o0.n>z» o .o. zoo: oz»
o.o.»xo o» 0n.o no: .oozon
oz» zco .zo»o.»eoo oz 0»
no: me.»no» .oo.uo.ozo>n»
..oozon oz» zo.o>o.

.zo»co.m oz »oc

...! oz.»no» .oo.00.0z0>n»
.0. c0.nn.E.o» »oz .»co
-».:ncoo .ozooo» o >z zo»o
-:.o>o oz »oc »coz:»n oz»

.n.n0zuo.z .o.»zo.o...z

o .0. o»oz »co..:0 zmaozo
»oz o.o o.oz» »az .zo..o»
-E. >..oc0.»0£o no noo.>.on
co.»o0:zo .o.oo»n .0. o.z.m
-..o n. »coz:»n ozo.m-zc~
n.z» »oz» »noooan o» oocoz
-.>o »co.0...:n n. o.oz»

.co.»o:.o>o .oo
-.»o.oz0>n» o »oazcoo
0» »concoo .o»oo.o»
.0 zoo. oz» .>..oo
-...0o»n .co.»o:.o>.

ox»

 

..o>o.

.oczon zm.z oz» »o n»:oz
-a»n zo..o»s. >..oc0.»0&o
.0. so...»o.» zoz.o»c00-..on
o zco»»o z.:czn »coz:»m
.n»co.o» oz» zo.o>o.

.»coEco..>co .00zon 0..
-z:» oz» n.z».z zo»oo:zo
oz zzo o.oeo. 0» zo:0..o

oz z.:ozn »zoza»n oz»

.>»...0o. o.oo .aoz-a~

o :. »az .uc.»»on .oozon

o z. »oc n. »coz:»n .u
32: zm.z n.z» .0. »coEco.
-.>oo o>.»o..»no. »noo. oz»

.»coszo..>co o>.»o..»no.
:8. oz» ....ooEooan

.»coeooo.» .oco.»oo
-=zo .0 nnoco»o..»o.»»<

m~xn

 

X

$»o.oz»mc.>.ooo..o».o
co.»o>.onzo .o.>ozoz
.0. .oo» .oozon »xoz
.o »c.cc.moz »o nzoox
m .0 E:E.z.e o .0.
co.»o0:zo .o.ocoo c.
c.oeo. z.aozn »coz:»m .z
. .955...
oz» .o>o >»o.oz»ozo>n»
no>.ooo. »coz:»n oz»
»oz» oon o» onoozo 3.5
-.o» oz» »oz» mc.zco»n
-.ozc: oz» z».3 ozoe
n. c0.»ozco&500o. oz»
..oo> .oozon
oz» .0 .ozc.oco. .0.
c0.»o0:zo .o.ocoo :.
o.oEo. z.»0zn »coz:»m .N
..» .o >£233... .o.
o..o»..o n»oos »coz:»m ..
.noo.»
-.no» z»0z zo»o.o».ooc.

o
M

.z..zo oz» .0

n»no.o»z. »noz oz» c. »o:
zco o>.»o=z0.»-.o»c300 oz
z.303 Eo.oo.» »co».:n000
.ozooo» o zco ..o»coe..»oz
oz z.:03 ». onaoooz zo..o»
-E. >..oc0.»oeo no zo.ozo.
oz »oc z.:0zn z..z0 ..oz»

.323 .o.:mo. o co noo.
->.on »co».:ncoo .ozooo»
o>.o0o. z.:ozn zco .m

no co.»oo...».oo .0. o..o»
-..0 oz» n»ooe »coz:»n oz»

.no0.>.on »co».:ncoo
.ozooo» 0c nan.o> noo.
->.on »co».=nc00 .ozooo»
zco .u »0: nan.o> .u
.>..o0...oo»n .»cozo»n
.u z.0-.oo>-o. o .0 »coE
-ooo.» zco :0.»oo...»coz.

o.\m

 

c0.n.0oo oxm

 

 

oz no>
zo.oo»»<

 

zo_._ooo ox»

 

co.».no» »co.o.

 

co_»_.o. .oozon

 

oann.

 

.o:
oc..oo:

 

8:8... 3.26:2.»
m.m.

127

.oo.»0on o>.»o..oo o. zoz:.0o.o

 

.o0.nn:on.z
.oz».:. .0. N.» .m
.0. o>.»o..oo oon
.oo.n.0oz n..o0...o
oo..ooz .ooo. z.oz»:

.»ooEooo.» .oozon
o»o>..» .0. »noo oz»
mo.>o» 50.. n»o..»
-..e .ooz». .»_z.zo..
o0.»=».»noou oom.zo.x
.o»o..»o.»»o n.
Eo.ao.» .w zoo.o»oOo
...o. .oozo. zo_z oz» ._
..oozon oz» zo.o>o.

o
N

.»noo oz»
.0. o.z.noo»no. oz z.:ozn
.oozon oz» zoo ..oo.oz o.
zo»ooo. ooo >..o0...oo»n.
>»...0o. .o.»ooz.no. o»o>

-..» o o. »oo oz »noz z.:oz

nzooo n.z .nzooo n.z..zo
..oz» »ooo »oo z.:oz so.»
-0.» .u zoo.o»ooo-..on oz»

.»ooe
-oo..>oo o>.»o..»no. »noo.
oz» oz z.:oz n.z» ..oozon

zo.z o_._ooa. o z.z».2
oo.uo.» .u zoo.o»ooo-..on

o n. »ooeooo.» .ooo.»o0
-:zo o»o..»o.»»o »noe oz»

.»ooe

-o0o.» .oozon o»o>..»
nan.o> 0..z:» .»ooz
-o»o _» .oozo. zo_z o
.o. »ooeooo.» .oo0.»oo
-:zo .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»<

axe
oN.

 

.... .u .0. o>.»o..oo
oon .noo.».no»
z»0z zo»o.0».ooo.

.o0.nnao
-n.z .oz».:. .0. ... .u
.0. o>.»o..oo oon .noo.»
-.no» z»0z zo»o.o».00o.

..ozooo» ooo 0»
n»ooz:»n m .0 z .0 o.»o. o
z».3 »ooeoo..>oo oo.o.oo.
o o. oz z.:0zn »ooz:»n oz»

..ozooo» ooo o» n»ooz:»n
o. no >ooe no z».3 .m mo.
->.on Eo.oo.» o o. oz z.:oo
no.:. 0» no.z.oooo zoo
.zo..o»E. »..ooo.»aeo no
zo...»ooz. n. »ooz:»n oz»

.wsm. .0 m. .u 0» »:
-30..o. o n. mo..ooz n.z»
"u»oz .»ooz:»n 0.»n.»:o
z.0-.oo>-. o .o. o.»o.
.ozooo»-»ooz:»n oz»
.>..o0...0o»m .oo.»oo:zo
0..z:» o»o..»0.»»o oo.»

sz»
o..

 

.»oz .o» n.zoz N

.o Eae.xoe o zoeoo.»n
-o.oE zoo Eco. o0.:0no.
».oE..» oz» o. zooo.»
oz z.aozn »ooza»n oz»
..oozon oz» zo.o>o.

.Eo.mo.»

eoo. o0.30no. o o>oz »oo
e_o zo_z: .oc_o__:z >.38...
-o.o »oo.o...z o o. zooo.»
oz z.:ozn »ooz:»n oz»

.oo.»
-o0:zo .o.ooom o. »oz .o»
n.ooz N .0 E:E.on o z».3
£00. o0.:0no. o o. zooo.»

oz z.00zn »ooz:»n oz»

.600.

o0.:0no. 0: no: o.oz»
o.oz3 mo.z..:z >.o»
-ooeo.o .oz»ooo o. »ooe
-o0o.» non.o> »ooeooo.»
:00. o0.30no. .>..oo...0
-o»m .z..zo ozo.u-»n. o
.o. »ooeooo.» .ooo.»o0
-:zo .o nnooo»o..»o.»»<

mN\o
a.

 

.n».zno0.»o.o. .oo0n
-.o»o. zoo »ooeomooos
.o.0.>ozoz oz:.oo. zoo
zo»0.o>oz oz »nae »w.
.noao.»o00>»o.o£»o»o>
-..» .. »n..»o.zo>n»
oz» z».3 cen.o.. o
oz.>o.» z.:ozn .oozom .a
.o»o.»oOo z.:0zn
.oz»0£ oz» z».:
»oo»ooo .ox.ox .o.00m .m
.o»o..»0.»»o n.
.oozon oz» >z zozooe
-600o. »ooeooo.» oz» .N
..u n. »ooz:»m ..
..oozon oz» zo.o:o.

m

.zo..o»E. >..oo0.»oeo
no zo.ozo. oz »0o z.:ozn
oz. oo»._o .. o__zo oz»

.n»ooz:»n .. .o.
soo.nno.0 zoo.o»ooo-..on

o o. zooo.» zoo zo..o»

-o. >..ooo.»oeo no zo...»
-ooz. oz z.:ozn »ooz:»n oz»

.oo.»oo:zo
.o.ooom o5.»-..:. non.o>
»ooeooo.» .u zoo.o»ooo
-..on zoo ..u »oo nan.o>
.u .>..oo...oo»n .»ooz:»n
ozo.u-z»z o .0. »ooeooo.».
.ooo.»oo:zo .0 nnooo»o..
-»0.»»o zoo o0.»o0...»ooz.

mxz
a

 

o0.n.0oa ozm

0:

 

n0>

8.884

 

o0.n.0oo oz»

 

o0.».no» »oo.o.

 

zo_»_.o. .oozon

 

 

.ox
uo..ooz

 

 

z.o..o».... 3.2.0.3....
n.z.

1:28

.oo.»0on oo.»o..oo o. zoz:.oo.o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.o.zooonoo. o.o
»oz» .>»...zo»»o00o
.o n».5.. .o»oo .z..z0
oz» zooo.»»o o0.»o» o.»n.»:o zomo->.o»oo5o.o
-.o»noo.» o. zo>.o>o. .n».5.. o.zoo0noo. o.z».3 oo .o. o0.»o».o»noo.» o.
.no..5 oN-o.. oooo» z»0z o.o oo.»o».o»noo.» 0» zo>.o>o. o5.» zoo oooo»
-n.z zoo .no»:o.5 om .o.zooonoo.o: o.o o>.»o.o. oooo»n.z zoo o5.» -n.z oz» zoo o0.»ooo.
-oe. o5.» oz» zm:0z».< .N o0.»o».o»noo.» o. zo>.o> oz» .ouoozo >..o=»0o »0o 5o.00.» »oo..:0 oz»
.»oo5ooo.» »oo..:0 -o. oooo»n.z zoo o5.» oz» z.z »az ..oz»ooo 0» .oozon .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»o oz»
oz» o. »oo oz ooo zoo ..oozon »oo.o...z o o. »oo5 ooo 50.. zo>05 no: 5o.mo.» .>..o0...0o»n .oo.»oo:zo
.oo.n.0oz zo.oz.nooo o.oz nzooo -ooo.» .0 onaoooz ..oozon oz» .»oo5o0o.» »oo..:o oz» 0..z:» o»o..»o.»»o oo..
n..oo...o oo..ooz n.»ooza»n oz» .0 ..< .. »oo.o...z o o» zo>o5 oooz o. o0.»oo:zo o»o..»o.»»o zoo »oo5o0o.» .ooo.»oo m.\N.
.ooo. oz» z.oz»z x ..oozon oz» zo.oso. o>oz »oo z.:ozn 5o.mo.» oz» oo uo.>.ooo. n. »ooz:»n oz» -:zo .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»¢ o.
.n»ooz
-:»n .u zo5oo.»no.o5 .0.
n. n»oo.o» oz» >z »zo00n .»o..»n.z .oozon .ooo.
5o.mo.» 500.nno.o oz» oz» o.z».: 5o.uo.» o o.
.z».ooz .o»oo5 >z zo»o.o»0 »o05ooo.» non.o> 5o.»
5o.oo.» »oo5»oo.» >oz o o. -0.» »oo5»oo.» »oz o o.
.5o.» oz 0» o:o.»ooo z.:ozn »oo5 »ooeooo.» .>..oo...o
.n»oo.o» oz» 0» 3598 -0.» 500.320 .m oo z».3 -o0o.» .oz.>o.» ooo »o..»n.z -o»m .»ooz:»n zo..o»5.
oo z».3 .5o.mo.» »oo5 »ooz:»n oz» oz.>o.» z.=ozn .oozon oz» »oz: zoo>oz oo.n >..ooo.»050 >.o.o>on
-»oo.» »oz oz» o. zooo.» »0..»n.z .oozon oz» .5o.» -.>.o»:n o>.noo»o. no..:oo. zomo->.o»oo5o.o oo
.o0.n.0oz n..o0...o oz z.:ozn »ooza»n oz» -0.» »oo5»oo.» >oz z».ooz oz »oz» >»..o>on zoan .0 .0. »oo5ooo.» .ooo.»oo e.\..
oo..ooz .ooo. z.oz»: x ..oozon oz» zo.o>o. .o»oo5 oz» o. n.oo> m .o».< n. »oo.zooz n.»ooz:»n oz» -:zo .o nnooo»o..»o.»»< m.
.o>ozo m.. .u no
o5on oz» o.o noo.n.ooz
. zoo .noo.».no» .oann.
.n.o0...o mo..oo: ".»oz
.»ooz:»n .o.»n.»:o.
.m.u .u .0. o>.»o. zo..o»5. >..ooo.»05o
-.oo oon .o0.n.uoz .oo.nn:0n.z .oz».:. .0. >.o.o>on z.o-.oo>-a. o
n..oo...o mo..ooz n.» .u .0. o>.»o..oo oon . .0. »oo5ooo.» .oo0.»oo oNxm
.ooo. oz» zon.o>o¢ x .»oo.o» oz» zo.o>o. .mNm. .0. n.» .m no osom .mnm. .0. m.» .m no o5om -:zo .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»< «a.
.zo..o.noo.» o.oz .ozooo»
zoo nno.o o.ozz oz» ..
.oozon 0...oo»n o o. »oo5 .o>.»ooo.
-o0o:.o>.»oo.o».o oo »»oooo -o.» o>.»o.»n.o.5zo oo »az
z.=03 n»oo.o» oz» .on.3 .oann. o.zo.ooz o »0o n.
-»oo.»n zoo »oo-mo.»oo o.o n»ooz=»n .w .0. 53:o.»o00 .»ooz:»n zoo oann.
n»ooz:»n .oz»o oz» onaoooz oz» o.z».: .oozon .oz»ooo o5on n.z» zo>.o>o.
nno.oo. 0» z..zo oz» onaoo o. »ooz:»n o .0 »oo5ooo.» c»m. .o. m.» .. ".»oz
z.aoz 5o.mo.» zozooEEcoo. oz» »oz» zozoo»o00 0n.o .»ooza»n A0.»n.»:o.
.m.o .. .o. o>.»o. oz».: »oosooo.» .n.oo> z.-: .oozqnoz»..n.oo> mN-z. zomo zo..o»5. >..ooo.»05o
-.oo oon .oo.n.0oz .oo.nn:0n.z .oz».a. .0. zomo n»ooz:»n no>.on z0.z3 n»ooz:»n .u .0. .oozon »oo >.o.o>on z.o-.oo>-z. o
n..o0...o oo..ooz n.. .w .o. o>.»o..oo oon .5o.ao.» »oono.» oz» o. -.o...z o o. zooo.» >.o»o.. .0. »oo5ooo.» .ooo.»o0 szm
.30. oz» zon.o>o¢ x .»oo.o» oz» zo.0>o... o.o5o. z.:ozn »ooz:»n oz» -»o.»»oozz.:03 »ooza»... oz» .nzo .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»< on.
8.23» 2.» “Now“? 8.38» 2: 82.8. »oo... 82.8. .86... on... “no:

 

 

 

 

 

 

zo..o»5. >..ooo.»o5u
a...

125)

.5203 o>.»o..oo o. zoz:.oo.o

 

.o»o..»0.»»o
n. .910: .203
.oozon oz» 50..
».o»»:n z».: 500.
-nno.o a» zoo.o»ooo
-..on o o. »oo5o0o.» .N
.o» .0. o..o»..o
oz» n»oo5 z..z0 oz» ..
..oozon oz» zo.0>o.

.o»o..oo.»»o no: 5oo.nno.0
zo.:»0:.»n o »oz» o»o»n

z.z :5 5390.» a» zoo.o»ooo
-..on o o. »oo5o0o.» o

o» zo»ooqzo 0n.o »oo.o» oz»
.n.oozon oz» o. oo.zooo»
>».ao. .o ».:no. oz» o.o:
n50.zo.» 0.5ozo0o n.z..zo
oz» »oz» zo»o»n zoo zo.zon.z
uo.o.oo. .o .ozo. oz» 0»
zo»oo..z0>.mo0.»n »oo.o» oz»

..o»..03 .o.00n

.oozon oz» 50.. noo.).on
o>.».o»»:n o>.ooo. zoo
zo.zon.z uo.o.oo. oz» .0.
500.nno.0 zoo.o»o00-..on
o o. zooo.» oz z.:ozn zoo
»oozo»n zo.zon.z mo.o.oo.
o no >»...z.u..o .0. o..o»
-..0 oz» n»oo5 »ooz:»n oz»

»zo.zon.z

mo.o.oo. no zooo.» zo»
oo_._»zoo_ oz oz. o.ooz.
.>..oo...0o»n .oo.»
nooozo .o.oooo o. >.»oo.
-.:o z..z0 o .0 »oo5
nooo.» zoo o0.»o0...»ooz.

ann

 

.o0.n.ooz n..oo...o
ne..ooz .ooo. o.oz»:

.zo.zon.z wo.o.oo. no
o0.»oom.noz .0. o..o»..o
oz» .0 ..o »oo5 >.»oo.
-.:0 »oo nooz »ooz:»n oz»
..oozon oz» zo.0>o.

.zo.zon.z
mo.o.oo. no o.z.m..o oz 0»
oao.»ooo z.:ozn »ooz:»n oz»

.noo.o

o>.».o000 ..o o. o>0zo .0
.o>o.ozo.m»o n. oz onsoooz
zo.zon.z oo.o.oo. no
oo.......o oz 0» o_z_o__o
.o»oo. 0: n. »ooz:»n oz»

.o» »oo

nan.o> a» .>..oo...0
-o»n .zo.zon.z oo.o.oo.
no zo...»:oz. ».»oo.
-.:0 »ooza»n z.o-.oo>
-m o .0 oo.»o0...»ooz.

z.\m

 

.o0.n
-.ooz n..o0...o mo.
-.ooz .ooo. z.oz»:

.»oo5

-ooo.» .oo0.»o0=zo oo »0o
no: »w .o.oo0.»o. .o0.zo5
co»: zonoz no: »ooEooo.»
oz» ooo.n »oz» zo»o»n
.oo...0 mo..ooz .ooo. oz»
.o»o..»o.»»o

o.o non: z».ooz

.o»oo: .0 »oo5».o»oz
oz» o.:5.0. .o>o»oz3
>z zonnonno n»noo >o<
.o.:»oo o.

.oo.zo5 o.o n»oo.o»
oz» >z zo..:oo. no.»
-...zo__ .o.ozoz_. .c< ._
..oozon oz» zo.o>o.

N

.o.a»oo o. .oo

-.zo5 o.o »oz» no0.>.on
.0. >.o0 o.z.noo»no. o.o
35.3 oz» zoo .no0.>.on
zo»o.o. ..o .0. o.z.n
-oo»no. >..o.0ooo.. 0n.o
n. »0..»n.z .ooz0n oz»
.zoz.>o.»

oz »nae o0.»oo:zo 0..z:»
o»o..»o.»»o oo.. o ooo.n
.ooooz.no. .0 »0..»n.z
.oozon oz» z».: n»no.
.o».»noz 0..»o.zo>n» oz»
o. »oo5o0o.» .0. >»...z
-.noo»no. .o.oooo.. oz»

N

. zozooo no; »oz» ..o no:
»oz» :2... zoz.>o.» oz 333
5o.m0.» .ooo.»oo=zo o»o
-..»o.»»o oz» »oz» zo»o»n
»0..»n.z .oozon oz» .noo.
->.on zo»o.o. .o .ooo.»oo
-:zo .0. om.ozo o zo»oo..o.
>..5o. oz» >z zo..:0o.
>3.3.: .o.ozoc_. oz»

.0 oooz .o.:»oo o. .o0.z05
o.o: nom.ozo ..o o.o.o.oz»
zoo .»»o0o00 :o...5 zo»o.o
-o»o. oo .ozo: zoo0.»0o=.
n5o.mo.» ..o »oz» zozoo»o00
.o».»noz 0..»o.z0>n» oz»

.oooo.:no. >z.

zo.o>00 »oo n»noo .oz»0
uo...:oo. 0n.o zoo z»o05
.o» own zonnonno oo.oz
o.o: n»oo.o» oz» .z».ooz
.o»ooz .o »oo5».o»oo_
oom.zo.z oz» >z zo»o.o»o
oo.z..z0 .0. .o».»noz
0..»o.z0>n» o o. »oo.»o»
-o. oo n. oz: z..zo z.o
-.oo>-N. o .0. o.z.nooan
-o. >..o.oooo.. n. oz:
.>..o0...0o»m .oo.»oo:zo
0..z:» o»o..»o.»»o oo..

.N\N

 

..o o» .0. o>.»n.
-.on oom .r0.n.0oz
n..oo...0 oo..ooz
.ooc. oz» zon.o>o¢

X

.oe.» n.z» »o zo.zo

-n.z oo.o.oo. no zo...n
-no.0 oz »ooooo z..zo oz»
..oozon oz» zo.o>o.

.zo.zo
-n.z mo.o.oo. no zo...»
-ooz. oz z.:0zn »ooz:»n oz»

.o__zo zo.zon.z oc.z.oo.
o no co.».o..oz .0. >..
.o»o »oo no0z »ooz:»n oz»

.»0o .0 o» »ooz:»n
oz» n. ....oo_._o
-o»m ..oozon .o.z00.o»
o»o>..» o o. »ooz
-=»n ozo.o-z.n z.0-.oo>
-m o .0 o0.»o0...»ooz.

0.x.
4.

 

oo.n.0oo ozm

 

 

0: no»
zo.oo»»<

 

o0.n.uoo oz»

 

o0.».n0» »oo.o»

 

zoz»..o. .oozon

 

 

.02
no..ooz

 

zo.zon.z oo.o.ooz
nun.

1230

.o0.»oon o>.»o..oo o. zoz:.oo.o

 

. 9.... co >z zoo.5.o»oz oz
0» n. »oo».:no00 .ozooo»
oz» 50.. o0.>.on
.0 n.zoz .0 .oz50o oz» .N
.3 .0 oo.o o. mo.o.o.»
o>oz 0» o>oz »oo nooz
»oo».0no00 .ozooo» oz» ..
.noo.»
-.no» z»0z zo»o.o».00o.

.zoo: o n»oz m .>oz .o»
.ooz . .0. zoo .o» .0 oo.o
oz» o. zoo.o.» »oo».:no00
o >z zoz.>0.» oz z.0ozn
no0.>.on »oo».:nooo .ozooo»

.zooz .o» nzo..o» .ooz-.
03» .0. zoz.>o.» oz z.:ozn
.o» o. zoo.o.» »oo».:n

-o00 o >z >...onno0oo »oo.
noo.).on »oo».:no00 .ozooo»

.»ooz:»n
z.0-.oo>-». oz» 0» noz.>
-0.» »oo».:no00 oz» o5.»
.0 »oooEo oz» zoo .o» o.
zoo.o.» oz »n05 no0.>.on

mo.z.>o.» »oo».:no00
.ozooo» oz» »0o .0 .oz»ozz
.>..o0...0o»m .o0.»o00zo
o..z:» o»o..»o.»»o oo..

sxo

 

.oo.»oo....o.o
.oz».a. .0. on o»

.0. o>.»o..oo oom
.oo.n.0oz »oozoonozo_

.oo.»oo..

-..o.0 .oz».:. .0. on o»
.0. oo.»0on o>.»o..oo oom
.o0.n.0oz »oozoooozo.

..o.»

-ooz..ooo nz.00o. n.z..zo
.oz 000; »0o z.z »0..»n.z
.oozo. oz» .»_ oozozn ooz
»oo.o» oz» .o».o »m. oz»
zo.o».o »0..»n.z .oozon oz»
.oozo_.o. nEoz »o: a. o».
oz» onaoooz oo.»o0:zo 0..
.z0» o»o..»o.»»o oo.. o no.
->.ooo. »oo n. »ooz:»n oz»

.3o.>o. »u.
.oz»ooo oz» »o oo.»o.oz.nooo
.0. zoo 3o. >z zo»o»0.z no

zozooo n. oo.»o:.o>o-o. <
.»noaoo. »oo.o» .0 onzoooz
ozo5 o.o: »u. oz» o. ozo5
nomoozo »oo zoo .oo»»..3 no
zoo.oooa n...oz o. ... oz»

.oann. oo

0n.o no; oo.»o5.o.o. .0
»»..o.»ooz..oou ..oozon
oz» 0» oo>.o oz z.:03
n».0no. »ozz oz.ooz o»
»zo.. oz» zoz.ozn nno.o:
o0.»o:.o>o-o. o0» »oonooo
»0oz.0030n.o »oo.o» oz»
.oo»»..3 no »00 zo...oo
no: z.0-.oo>-n. o .o.
»u. oz» »oo .o .oz»ozz
.>..oo...0o»n .o0.»oo:zo
0..za» o»o..»o.»»o oo..

«\m
.»\m
on

 

X

.Eo.oo.a 0»o..
-»0.»»o oo oz.>0.» o»
oo»»..3 oz z.:ozn »u. .n
.»oz oz» .0 .ozo.oEo.

.0. zoooo.»no.o5

oz z.0ozn »ooz0»m
.z»o5 zoo .oooo.0n
.no.z:»n.o.oon.zn..mow
.0. 500. oo.oono.

.z. oo o. zo..o.oo

oz z.:ozn »ooz0»m ..
.»oo.o» oz» zo.oso.

o
N

.noo.>.on o0.»o0:zo .o.0
-o»n o>.ooo. zoo zo.zon.z
oo.o.oo. no zo...»:oz. oz

>..o»o.» z.0ozn »ooz0»n oz»

.o5.» ..a. oo.»o0:zo
.o.oooo o. oo.»o00zo oo
o>.o0o. o» o:o.»ooo z.:ozn
zoo .o» .0 o0.»oo...»ooz.
......ozn o.o. >z ooc..oe
no o0.»o00zo .o.oo»n .0.
o.z.u..o »oo n. »ooz0»n oz»

»noo.>.on oo.»o0:zo
.o.oo»n o>.ooo. zoo a»
no zo...»:oz. oz »ooz:»n
oz» z.:0zn .>..o0...0
-o»n ..oozon o. nnoooo.»
.00» no.30zn »az oo.»oo
-:zo .o.oooo o. >.»oo.
-.00 »ooz:»n o .0 »oo5
-ooo.» zoo oo.»o0...»ooz.

n.z

 

o0.n.ooa 01m

 

 

02 no»
zo.oo»»<

 

zo_._ooz oz»

 

o0.».no» »oo.oo

 

zo_»_no. .oozon

 

oonn.

 

.oz
oo..ooz

 

zo.zon.z oo.o.ooz
«Na.

.oo.»0on o>.»o..oo o. zoz:.oo.«

 

.oo.n.ooz n..oo...o.

uo..ooz .ooo. z.oz»:

.>oz

.o» .aoz ooo .o. 500.
oo.:Ono. oz» o. »oo5o0o.»
zoao.»o00 n. »oo5o0o.»
o»o..»0.»»o »n05 oz»

..oozon oz» zo.o>o.

.o»o..»o.»»o n. »oz .o»
n.00z m .0. EOO.nno.o a»
zoo.o»o00-..on o o. »oo5

-ooo.» ..o.»oo»o» n.z..zo
..oz» »0.o>oz o» .oz.0 o.

.5o.mo.»

»oono.» oz» .0 oo.»o:o.»o0o
0 oz z.003 zoo »oo50..:oo.
»oo5oo..>oo o>.»o..»no.
»noo. oz» z».x n5.o.

-o00 n.z» .zoo: .o» n>oz
o>.. .»oz .o» .ooz ooo .0.
500. oo.:0no. o o. n. »oo5
-ooo.» o»o..»o.»»o »noe oz»

.»ooz=»n a» ozo.o-z»»

o .0. .500.nno.0 a»
zoo.o»ooo-..on .o 500.
oo.oono. o .o»o..»o.»»o
o.o5 n. zo.zx .>..o0...0
-o»n .»oo5o0o.» .ooo.»o0
-=zo .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»<

».\m
o.

 

131

.»u. oo oo
zonoz zoo .»o05oo..>oo
o>.»o..»no. »noo.
oz» o. zoz.>0.» oz
z_00zn o0.»o00zo .o.0
-o»n o»o..»o.»»o ooz»
.zozn..zo»no n. o» .. .m
.»o: .0 o» n. »ooz3n ..
oo.5.o»oz o» zo.zzozon
oz z.:ozn um». 30: <
.>H_
-..z.m..o co oo.n.0oz
o ozoe o» o.zo..o>o
n. oo.»o5.o.o. »oo.o
-...0n »oz» n.oo»»o ». ..
.o0.n.0oz »cozcooozc.

o
N

.0: .5630.»

o0.»o0:zo .o.oo»n .0. o.z
-.o..o ozoe zoo a» no zo»oo
-o_.oo oz o.oozo e__zo oz»

.5o.mo.»

o»o..»0.»»o oo oo.5.o»oz
0» ..o. oz» o. uo.»oo5

o >z zozo..o. .o»o..»o.»»o
oz z.:ox onoooxo .oozon

»o >0oomo o»o>..» o 50..
n.o».o» .ozo.».oo< .o» .o
zo»ooo.noz oz >..omo. z.000
»ooz0»n z.0-.oo>-.. n.z»
»oo .o .oz»oz3 0» no oo.oo
»oo z.000 .ooo0n.o» .oozom

.nnooo.» oo.»
-o0...»ooz. »ooaoonzan
zoo no.3zooo.» oo.»
-o0.o>o .0 »ooaaozo oz»
.»..oo...0o»m .oo.»o:
-.o>o zoo o0.»oo...»ooz.

.xm

 

.o0.»oco.»xo

.oz».:. .0. mu 0»
.0. o>.»o..oo oom
.c0.n.ooz »cozoooozo.

X

.n»oo.o» oz»
.0 >»...z.noo»no. oz»

n. mo.55o.mo.» .o550n
.o.0»:»o .0. »noo >o< .z
.n»oo.o» 0» zoo.o»o.
oz ..ozn nz.000. .0.
n»c0.o» >z z.o» n»no. .m

.oo.»o:.o>o o>.noozo.»
-500 o »oazo00 ..ozn
5oo» oo.»o:.o>o zoo < .N
.zozo.0no.
no: a» no »ooz:»n
oz» nz......o.o u... ..
.noo.»
-.no» z»0z zo»o.o».00o.

.mc.E

-5o.oo.» .0550n .0. »o»
z.:0zn »0..»n.z .oozom .m
.nz.000. .oozon 0»
nnoooo zo.ooz o.o: >oz»
.nz.00o.

.oozon .0 .o>o..»o.

zoo z0.oon o .0. zoo.ozo
oooz o>oz z.00zn oo. 02 .n
.z..z0 ..oz» z».3
ooo-0»-oo0 ..o: o» .0»:»
o .0. >o» z.00zn .oozom
.»u. oz»

»o oo.» o»o..»o.»»o

oo 5.0. o» »oo.0...:n
-o. o.o: o»oz o.»noomo.o

c.

N

.no.oo

-o00 .o»oo.o» oz» o>.0no.
0» ozo5 oooz o>oz n»»5o»»o
zoo .noo.>.on o»o..»o.»

-»o oo.>.o0o. n. z..z0 oz»
.mo..ooz o .0. »noaoo. oz»
o. .oo.0o: o.o .oozon oz»
»no.ooo »zmao.z nom.oz0 oz»

.mo.55o.o

-0.» .o550n .o. n»n00
>2. 0» .oozon zo»oo: 0n.o
n»oo.o» .nz.00o. .00z0n
0» nnoooo zo.zoz oo.oz
0n.o zoo nz.00o. .oOzon
.0. zoo.ozo oo.oz »oo.o»
..0»0» o .0. »o» z.:0zn
oz: zoz:.oo. noann. »oo.
.oo.» o»o..»o.»»o oo
5.0. o» »oo.0...:no. o.o:
o»oz oo.»o:.o>o oz» »oz»
.>..o0...oo»m .»ooz:»n
ozo.o-»n. o .0. o0.»oo
-:zo o..z:» o»o..»0.»»o
oo.. zoo oo.»o:.o>u

..xz

0‘

 

:0.n.ooa oxm

 

oz

 

no»

zo.ooo»<

 

oo.n.0oo oz»

 

oo.».no» »oo.o»

 

oo.».no» .oozow

 

oann.

 

.oz
uo..oo:

 

zo.zon.z oo.o.ooz
«Na.

132

 

.»coEooo.» zoo noo.»o0
-.o>o o»o>..» .0. o.zo
-»o0000o >..o.0ooo..
z.oz oz »ooooo zoo
oo.»o00zo o..z:» o»o
-..»0.»»o oo.. o oz.)
-0.» 0» ..o. »oo z.z
»0..»n.z .ooz0n oz»
.o». 2o: o .z ooze.
-.0. oz 0» o0.»o:.o>o

N

.>..5o. oz» >z zo..ooo.
n»n00 .oo0.»o0:zo

zoo o0.»o=.o>o .0. o.z.n
-o0»no. z.oz oz o.o.o.oz»
z.oozn zoo uo.55o.ao.»
o»oaoozo zoz.>0.» .o>oo

.»ooe

-ooo.» .ooz0n o»o>..»

>z zo..ooo. n»n00 .0.
o.z.noo»no. »0o n. »0..»

.»ooz0»n

»» z.0-.oo>-c. o .0.
o»o»n .oz»ooo o. .ooz0n
32...» o o. »oo5o0o.» >z
zo..ooo. n»n00 .0. o.z.n
-o0»no. z.oz oz z.oozn
zoo 5o.mo.» o»o..»o.»»o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o>.noozo.»500 o »ooz noz »0..»n.z .oOzon oz» .N -n.z .ooz0n oz» zoo .o»o oo oz.>o.» o» zo..o.
-o00 ..ozn .ooz0n oz» ..oozon -..»o.»»o oooz noz »ooz »0..»n.z .ooz0n oz» »0o
.ooz0n o..z:» oz» 3:. o..z=» o. zo..o.oo-o. n. -:»n oz» .0. oo.o-5.00... .N .0 .oz»ozx zoo .o»o..
>.»oo-o. n.»ooz:»n z..z0 oz» o.o.oz oo.oo.» .zo»0=z000 oz ooo o0.» -»o.»»o no: »u. oo »oo
oz» :0»: zoo .o»o:oozo o»o:oozo o.oEo»oox »oz» -o0.o>o .oz».:. o »oz» .0 .oz»ozz .>..o0...o
.oo.n.0oz n..oo...o n.oo.»no:o o. »m. oz» .. zoo .o»o..no.»»o »oo no: o5.» zoan ..»o0 o»oooozo -o»n .o0.»o0:zo 0.. z.\N.
mo..ooz .ooo. z.oz»: x ..oozon oz» zo.0>o. z..zo ..oz» .0. »u. oz» .. no: o0.»no:0 o. »u. oz» .. -z0» o»o..oo.»»o oo.. n.
.zo_zo._o oc.z.oo. .o» oo oo...»
.0 oo.».o..oz .n.». .zo.zo .»ooz:»n zo.zo -ooz. oz z.oozn »ooz:»n
.ozm o.zo >z zoo..oz no -n.z oo.o.oo. no zo...»:oz. -n.z oo.o.oo. o no noo.>.on ozo.u-zoooon o »oo
zo»»o0.zooz n. z..zo oz» oz »oo z.oozn zoo zo»»oo oo.»o0:zo .o.oo»n .o. o.z.n .0 .oz»ozx .>..oo...o m.\N.
x ..oozon oz» zo.o>o. -.zooz »0o n. z..z0 oz» -..o no no....o:o z..z0 oz» -o»n .o0.»o0...»ooz. N.
.»ooz0»n oz» zoo
.n.oz0oo» o0.»o0:zo .o.o .zozooo ..
-oo» .»oo».=nooo oz» >z 05.» .ozo.».zzo .0. oo.n.>
zoo.5.o»oz no >.onnoooc no -0.» o z»... ...oo: .o» .02
>.»oo:oo.. no »oo».:no00 .zo..:0o. n. .5o.mo.» ooo ooz» nno. 0o .0. »oo .5o.o
.ozooo» o .0 noo.>.on oz» no.»...zon.z oo.o.oo. o o. -».:no00 .ozooo» o .0 noo. -o.» 500.nno.o nan.o>
o>.ooo. zoo .oo.»oo:zo >oz >.o>o o5.» o5on oz» »o ->.on oz» o>.o0o. zoo ozo.» o0.>.on »oo».0nooo
.o.oooo o. »oo. zo:o.»o00 zo.zzozon .»oz .o» .aoz ooo z»o. oz» o. 50.00...:o .ozooo» .>..o0...0o»n
..o.n.ooz n..oo...o oz z.oozn »ooz0»n oz» »noo. »o .z..zo ..oz» .0 o0.»o0:zo .o.ooo» oz» o. .»oo5ooo.» .ooo.»o0 aNxm
oc..ooz .ooo. z.oz»: x ..oozon oz» zo.0>o. nzooo oz» »oo5 o» .oz.o o. oao.»ooo z.oozn »ooz0»n oz» -:zo .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»< ..
oo.n.0oo con 02 no» o0.n.0o» ox» oo.».no» »oo.o» oo.».no» .ooz0n oonn. .oz
. zo.oo»»< lino..ooz

 

zo.zon.z oo.o.oo»
«.m.

1133

 

.oo.n.0oz n..oo...0
oo..ooz .ooo. z.oz»:

.5o.m

-0.» .z. zoo.o»o00-..on
o o. zooo.» oz 0» ooo.»
-ooo z.oozn »ooz0»n oz»
..oozon oz» zo.o>o.

.323 oz» >z ozo5 o0.»ozoo5

-500o. oz» z».3 oo.mo »0o
z.z >.»5.n »oz» .oo.»o»oon
-o.»o. o>oz .0 oo..ooz oz»
zoo»»o »0o z.z zoo oo.»..z

o. oo.».no» ..oz» zo»o»n
.o>oo n»oo.o» oz» zonoz».<

.Eo.oo.»

.zm zoo.o»ooo-..on ».o»
-ooeo.o >..oo oz» o. zooo.»
o.ooo. z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»

.500.nno.0 .z. zoo.o»ooo
-..on o o. zooo.» o.o5o.
z.oozn »ooz0»n oz» »oo
.0 .oz»ozz .>_.o0...0
-o»n .»oooooo.» .oo0.»oo
-ozo .o nnooo»o..»o.»»<

m.\z

 

..o.»o00 .o 30.6. zozooo
oz» zo»o.o>oz noz »ooz
-:»n oz» ..»o: zo>o.oz
oz z.oozn no.5oo.»n
-o.o5 »o n».0..o >o< .n
.oo. .ooz0n .0 »oz ...». o
o>.ooo. z.oOzn »ooz:»m .N
..oozon o..z=» oz»
o.z».z »o.»»on zoo.o»
-o00-..on o o. zooo.»
o.oeo. z.oozn »ooz0»m ..
.n»oo.o» oz» zo.o>o.

.zo.o.»xo >.o»oaoozo oooz
o>oz .o»oon .ooz0n 0..za»
oz» o.z».z no>.»oo.o».o
.oo0.»oo:zo ..o »oo zoo
.5o.uo.» .ooo.»ooozo o»o..
-oo.»»o oo oz.>o.» 0» >». . .z
-.noo»no. .o»o. n». oo.»oo5
»oo n. »0..»n.z .ooz0n oz»

.oo.»:».»no. .0 .o».»noz
o..»o.zo>n» o o. »ooeooo.»
o.z.nno» o z».3 .»zmaon oz
z.oozn oo.»oa.o>o 0..»o.zo

o>n» oz.n»:0 oo .0 .zooaz

-o. oz z.oozn >oz .ooz0n

oz» .oz».o .o»-o.zo.» »oo5
-»n=azo .o.o.>ozoz co zonoz

..oozon o.zz.5 o..z:»
oz» o. zoo.o5o. »ooz:»n
oz... »oz .ooz0n zooazo.
o .0 .»ooeooo.» .o».»noz
o..»o.z0>n» o.z.nno» o
.>..o0...0o»n .oo.»o0:zo
0..z0» o»o..»o.»»o oo..
zoo »oo5ooo.» .oo0.»oo
-:zo .0 nnooo»o..»0.»»<

..xo

 

.o»o.»o00z.:oznuo..ono:00
zoo noo.).on z.oz .o.00n
.ooz0n ..oz.on.z o.»o.on
zoo.oo.»oo»»oo. .>».>.n
-.:»5. .0 2530.» o.»o....»

.0 onaoooz »oo5o.o»o00
-. .on .o. 5350 z» .2
500.. oo.:Ono. o o. zooo.»
oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»
..oozon oz» zo.o>o.

.oo.»on».n 500.
-nno.o zoo.o»o00-..on o o.
zooo—z oz z.oozo o._zo oz.

.o.o»oa.»n zoo >»...zo»n

.0. zooo n.»ooz:»n oz» »oo5

»oo nooz 500. oo.:ono. o

.oo.5oo.»no.o5 zo».5..
to) 5.3500. 325:. o o.
zooo.» oz z.:0zn »ooz0»n oz»

.»oo5ooo.» zoo.o»ooo
-..on nan.o> 500.
oo.:Ono. .>..o0...oo»n
.»oo5o0o.» .ooo.»o0
-ozo .0 nnooo»o..»0.»»<

o.\m

 

.»coz:»n zo..o05.
oooaooo. zoo zooo»n

o no zoo »ooz0»n ....» oo no
oo.»o0:zo.o.0o»n o>.o0o.
o» o.z.o..o o. o_.zo oz.
..oozon oz» zo.0>o.

. .zo»»oo
-.zooz »oo n. z..z0 oz»

.z..zo zo..ooe.
omoaooo. zoo zooo»n zoo
.2. oo no oo.»oo:zo .o.o

-oz. .o. o.z.n_.o o. o.zzo
oz» .noo.»o0.o>o zooo»n
zoo .o0.uo.ozo>n» o0 zonoz

..z.

n. z.0-.oo>-m o »oo
.0 .oz»ozz .>..oo...0
-o»m .oo.»oo...»ooz.

0.x»
N

 

.oo.n.ooz n..oo...o
mo..ooz .ooo. z.oz»:

x

.noo.>.on 5oo.»n

-o.o5 o»o..»o.»»o z».3
5o.mo.» .zu zoo.o»ooo
-..on o o. zooo.»

oz z.oozn z..z0 oz»
..oozon oz» zo.oso.

.».oz 500. oo.:Ono.
o>.o0o. o» o:o.»ooo
z.oozn »:z .533.» ....

zoo.o»o00-..on o o. zooo.»

oz »0o z.oozn z..zo oz»
.oo.»o0:zo .o.oo»n

no ».oz 500. oo.:0no.
o>.o0.o» »0o 0z »oz»

zoo .oo.»o0:zo .o.oo»n o.
oz »oo z.oozn z..zo oz»

0
N

.noo.o 0.5ozoooo0o o.
no.5oo.»no.o5 z».3 500. .z.
zo»omo.mon o 0» .».oz 500.
oo.:Ono. z».3 »ooeooo.»
nno.0 oo.»oo:zo .o.ooom
»oono.» oz» 50.. zoou.nno
-o. oz 0» »ooz:»n oz» .0
»no.o»o. »noz oz» o. n. ».

.»ooz0»n ozo.u-z»o o .0.
5o.uo.» .xu zoo.o»ooo
-..on nan.o> 500.
oo.:0no. .>..o0...0o»n
.»oo5o0o.» .ooo.»o0

-0zo .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»<

ox:
.

 

o0.n.0o» ozm

 

0:

 

no»

zo.oo»»<

 

co.._ooz ox»

 

oo.».no» »oo.o»

 

oo.»..oo .oozon

 

.oz
oo..oo:

 

 

zo..ooo. ...-»oo: o.z-ooo»

mum.

13:.

.oo.»0on o>.»o..oo o. zoz:.oo.o

 

.o»o..»o.»»o n.
5o.00.» .2. zoo.o»ooo
-..on zozoo5500o. oz» .N

.o»o..»o.»»o »oo n.

»oo5ooo.» o0.»o0:zo

.o.ooom »oono.» oz» ..
..oozon oz» zo.o>o.

.nzoo5500o.
»0..»n.z .ooz0n oz» ooo
oz» »0o »az .»ooEoo..>oo

0.5ozo0o oo o. zooo.» z..z0

oz» »ooz »oz» .o5.» n.z»
»o »0 »on 5o.oo.» .o»o.»
o o>oz »oo nooz .ooz0n

oz» zoo .zoz o.o: n»oo.oooo.»
oo.»o0:zo .o.oo»n n00.>o.»

.n»ooz:»n .2» .o.

5o.mo.» 500.nno.0 o o. o5.»
..o. ooo... oz o..oz. ooo
.n»oo.o» oz» >z zozooooz no
»oo5ooo.» ozo.m-z»m oo.»oo
-azo .o.ooom o o. zozooooan
»oo noz ..z. n. »ooz:»n oz»

.»ooz
-:»n .2. z.o-.oo»-N. o
.0. »ooEooo.» oo.»oo:zo
.o.ooom nan.o> oo.»oo:zo
.o.oo»n .>..oo...oo»n
.»ooEooo.» .oo0.»o0

-ozo .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»<

m.\N.
c.

 

.oo.n.ooz n..oo...o
mo..ooz .ooo. z.oz»:

.>..5o. oz» 0» o.zo
-..o>o ozo5 oz z.oozn
no0.>.on z.oz .o.00n .N
..oozon »o »ooE
-ooo.» .z» zoo.o»ooo
-..on oz» o. ooo.»
-o00 z.oozn z..zo oz» .
..oozon oz» zo.o>o.

.mo.zooo» oz» .0.
n.noz oz» no 5300......» o»o

-..»o.»»o oz» oz.>o.» z.oozn

.oozon oz» ..oo-can n:0.>

-o.» oz» z. .zo oz» zo.o»a» czz
o0n.o» o .0 noo.>.on oz» o>.o0
-o. zoo .ooz0n 50.. oEoz o»o»n
0» zo..o. .o oz z.oozn zoo .o»o»
ooo-o»-ooo o nzooo z. .zo oz»

.no.».>.»oo zoo».

zoo 5.» .o. zo5oo.»no.o5
oz zoo .»oo.oz» zooo»n
o>.ooo. .n.noz >oz-..:.

o :0 5o.u0.» .xu zoo.o»ooo
-..on o o. »oo5ooo.» oz»
ooo.»ooo z.oozn z..zo oz»

.z..z0

.x. z.o-.oo>-m o .0.
oooz oz» o. mo..o»:» ooo
-0»-ooo nan.o> .ooz0n »o
»ooEooo.» .tu zoo.o»o00
-..o. ....oo_._ooan
.»ooeooo.» .oo0.»oo

-0zo .0 nnooo»o..»0.»»<

on\..

 

.o»o

-..»0.»»o n. 5o.mo.»
.z» o o. »ooeooo.» .m

.o»o..o0.»»o no:
o.zzooo.» »ooEnnonn¢ .N

..t» n. z..zu .
..00z0n oz» zo.0>o.

.825... zooz »0.. .oz 0...» oz»

>z zo»oo. .z 59.9..» oz» zoo

.o»». oz» »o »a»o. .o.»oo»o»

.0oo.»o.oz.noooo»oovozo

oooz »oo zoz o.oz» .o»o..»o.»
-»o:. no: o.00n »no» ooooo:
- .o»o. zo~.z.ozoo»n o :0 z. .z0

oz» .0 »oo5nnonno onoz o»

.Eo.m0.»

.o» o z. zooo.z ooo .o»

no zo»oom.noz oz 30o z.oozn
»ooz:»n oz» »oz» o»oo.zo.
n»oo5nnonno »oooo. zoo
5o.oo.» .z. oo o. zooo.»
o..z3 noooo..o»xo .0..»

.oo.»»on .ooz0n 0..

-z:» o o. »ooeooo.» non
-.o> >»...0o. zo»ooo.mon
o o. »oo5o0o.» zoo ..z»
nan.o> .xu .>..oo...oo»m
.»oo5ooo.» zoo .oo.»
-o0.o>o .o0.»o0...»ooz.

»\..

 

... .z. .0. o>.»o.
-.oo oom .oo.n.ooz
n..o0...0 zo..ooz
.ooo. oz» zon.o>o¢

.o»o..»o.»»o n. 5o.u

-0.» ....» zozooo-Boo.
oz» o. »ooeooo.» .N

..x» no zo...nno.o
oz z.00zn z..zo oz» ..
..oozon oz» zo.oso.

..ozo. o»o..»o.»»o
o.05 oz» n. .z» .oo.o.o.»
0.5ozooo >..oo zoo .oo.

-.oz05 omoamoo. .oo» .oo.»
-0o.o»o. .o.00n .0. oo.z..0z
.ooz0n 0..z0» o o.z».z 500.
-nno.o ...» zoo.o»000-..on oz»
o. o.o5o. z.oozn z..z0 oz»

.>»...zo

.0 .o>o. n.»ooz:»n n.z» o0
o.o5 n. 5o.oo.» »oz» ooo.n
.o»o..»0.»»o n. n»ooz:»n
.o» no...o. eco an. oz» .z
zo»o.o»0 >»...0o. o o. »oo5
-ooo.» ..z» .0 o0.».o..oz
oz» n»oo5 30o »ooz:»n oz»

.z..z0

z.0-.oo>-» o .o. oo.»»on
.ooz0n o..za» o o. »oo5
-o0o.» nan.o> >»...0o.
zo»oao.mon o o. »oo5
-o0o.» zoo ..t» nan.o>
.o» ....oo...ooan .»coE
-ooo.» zoo oo.»oo...»ooz.

z.\o.
._.\o_
o»

 

.oo.n.ooz n..oo...o
mo..ooz .ooo. z.oz»:

K

.oo.n

-.ooz mo..ooz oz» .0 n»oz
cm o.z».x zo.zzozon oz
z.oozn 3o.>o. ... o< .o»o
-..»0.»»o n. 5o.oo.» .z.
zoo.o»o00-..on >.o»oo5o.o
.o»o. oz» o. »oo5ooo.»
..oozon oz» zo.oso.

.n.o»oo.

o>.»omoo ..o o.o .ooz0n oz»
0» oooo»n.z oz» zoo .n»ooz

-:»n .0 .oz50o oz» .nno.0

zono»o.» oz» o. n»ooz:»n oz»

.0 »0-ozo3 oo.»o.0»o» oz»

..oozon

zoo .o>o. n.»ooz:»n o
onoozo 0» 3o. .o.ozo. zoo
o»o»n z»0z .0 no..ozo:oz
o>.»o.»n.o.5zo oz» o.z».3
n. ». .o»o..no.»»o n. 5o.»
-0.» ....w zoo.o»o00-..on ».o»
-oo5o.o .o»o. oz» 0» onoozo
o .0. oo.»ozoo550oo. oz»

.oo.no.. .o».
zoo.o»o00-..on >.o»oo5o.o
x..oo»oo..:0oz».; o.o5
-o. .o .»o..»n.z .ooz0n
.oz»0oo o. zo»ooo. 5200.».
zoo.o»ooo-..on .zu .o»o.
o o. zooo.» oz z.oozn
o.zzo .o» o.o-.oo>-__ co
»0o .0 .oz»ozl .>. .323
-o»n .»ooeooo.» .ooo.»oo
-ozo .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»<.

 

ano
z

 

oo.n.0oa czm

 

oz

 

no»

zo.oo»»<

 

o0.n.ooo oz»

 

oo.».no» »oo.o»

 

oo.».no» .oozom

 

.oz
mo..oo:

 

 

zo..ozo. o..o»zo: o.z-ooo»

as».

135

.oo.»0on o>.»o..oo o. zoz0.0o.o

 

 

 

 

..oozon oz» >z z.o» oz
z.oozn .o»ooo >».>.»0o z.0:
oz» »o mo.55o.oo.» .o »no»
oz» »oz ..oozon oz» »o ooz»
.oz»o. oo.oo.» >».>.»0o .ozo.»
z.oz oz» >z »o5 oz »ooz -o00 0n.o z.oozn noo.>.on
.onou z.000 nzooo .ooo.»oo:zo >»o.oz» zooo»n .5o.mo.» .»ooz:»n .2» z.0
n.z» .o oo.»ooo.»xo »oo ..oozon oz» >z zoz.>o.» .o»o» n.»ooz0»n oz» .0 -.oo>-.N o .0. 5o.mo.»
zo..o»oz o.05 o .o. .o»o..»o.»»o noo.>.on oo.»o0:zo .oo.n>z» ».o» o oz 5o.mo.» »».>.»oo .ooo.»o0:zo oo n:n.o>
Nu .z» .ozo: oo.»0on n. .ooz0n oz» >z zozoo5 zoo oooomoo. zoo zooo»n z.0: o5.»-».o» zooz-oN 5o.mo.» >».>.»0o z.0: o
o>.»o..oo oon ..oo» -5000. no 5o.oo.» >».>.»oo z».3 .>»...0o. o...0o»n o zoo ..oozon o...0o»n o .>..o0...0o»m .oo.»ooozo
..a. o o» >».>.»oo z.oz o5.»-».o» »ooz-0N zoo. o »o »oo5o0o.» >».>.»0o »o zoz.>o.» oz 0» o:o.»ooo 0..z:» o»o..»o.»»o oo..
..o: zonoo.0o. »az »owoooeoo oo.»o0:zo oz» z.oz o5.»-..:. o oz z.003 z.oozn »ooz:»n n.z» .0. zoo »oo5ooo.» .ooo.»o0 m.\z
.ooz0n oz» zo.o>o. x ..oozon oz» zo.o>o. 5o.ao.» o»o..»o.»»o o.o5 < »oooooooo oo.»o0=zo oz» -ozo .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»< «N
.»ooEooo.»
o»o..»0.»»o oo.5.o»oz
o» zooo>ooo oz z.oozn
»oo» 3oc o .m.\_\.. >z .z
.m»\m_\o_ >z o.zzo
oz» :0 oo.»o:.o>o .oa»
-0o..o»o.»cozoo»ozo.
oo ...-.30 0» o.o n»oo.o» .n
.E:.:0...:0
oz» .0 ».o» .omo5
o no Eo.mo.» omosooo.
o>.noo»o. oo oz=.0o.
o» .ozooo» 5oo.nno.u .N .mo.5
..oo» -5o.uo.» zoo o0.»o0..
.ooz0n .0 .ozo.o5o. .0. .»oo.oooo.» -.»ooz. ....» nan.o> ......
»oo5o0o:..xu»oono.» .zu »oo..:o oz» ooo.» .5o.oo.» .2» o .»..o0...0o»n .»oo5ooo.»
oz»...o.o50..x»»ooz:»n .. -ooo zoo .zw no zo...»ooz. o. zooo.» zoo .2» no zo...» .ooo.»o0=zo o»o..»o.»»o .\m
x .n»oo.o» oz» zo.0oo. o.o5o. z.oozn »ooza»n oz» -ooz. oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz» zoo oo.»o0...»ooz. .
oo.n.ooa oxn Wu.owmu< oo.n.0oo oz» oo.».no» »oo.o» oo.».no» .ooz0n oonn. mo.muoz

 

 

 

 

 

zo..ooe. >..o»ooz o.zoo.o.»

n»m.

 

 

136

.oo.»0on o>.»o..oo o. zoz:.oo.o

 

.o» .z» .0. oo.»
-oon o>.»o..oo oon
.oo.n.ooz n..oo...o
zo..ooz .ooo. z.oz»:

.»w. o»o..
-»o.»»o oo o.onno 0»
n»oz om. zoo>oz n>oz
.00z0n cm »noo. »o
0» »n05 5o.m0.» 3oz .n
.zooo>
-o00 oz 0» »u. 302 .N

. ..u n. »coz0»m ...

.oo.n.ooz »oozoooozo.

.5o.mo.»

>».>.»0o z.oz .oz-OMN o o»
.zo.».»oo n. zoo no..0vo.
zoo .o:z.>.zo. zo..o»5.
>.».».:5 o n. »ooz:»n oz»

.zo..o»5. >.».».05
no o.zo...».o0 »oo n. zoo
5o.oo.» »oz-om. 0» zo.».»

-oo n. oz: »ooza»n .z» o

n. »ooz0»n oz» .o»o..»0.»»o
zoo .o»o.» n. n»oz on.

.0. 5o.uo.» >».>.»0o 4.0: <

.z.o-.oo>-MN o .0. n»oz
co. zoo>oz .oo> .oOzon
zozoo»xo zoo zo..oae.
>.».».05 nan.o> .z»
.>..oo...oo»n .oo.»o0
-0zo o..z0» o»o..»o.»»o
oo.. zoo oo.»oo...»ooz.

nwxo.
oz

 

.m. .x» .0.
oo.»oon o>.»o..oo
oom .nco.».n0»
z»0z zo»o.o».00o.

 

.onoo n.z»

.0 oo.nn:on.z z»»oz-o.
0.05 .0. m» .t» .ozo:
o>.»o..oo oon .noo.»
-.no» z»0z zo»o.0».00o.

.>».o

-05500 .ooo. ..oz» .0 »oo
oo.z..z0 oz» .0 .o.noo.»
zoo 05.» o0.»o».o»noo.»
zonoo.0o. o» oaz »oo5
-oo..>oo o>.»0..»no. o.o5

o o. »ooEooo.» o zo»:».»n
-o00 0n.o oo.»ooo. 5o.oo.»
o. oooozo oz» ..ooo... 5o.»
-o.» c. omcozu oz» mo.zoE
>zo.oz» .n»zm.. nnooo.»

oaz zo.ooz o.o: >oz» oo.»oo
.ooz0n oz» onoooo 0» n».0..o
..oz» o. »oz» zozoo»o00 zoo
n»ooz:»n oz» .0 »oo5o>05
oz» 0» zo»ooazo n»oo.o» oz»

.3o. >z zo..ooo.

no n»zm.. nnooo.» oaz

..oz» zoz.o..o o.o: n»oo.o»
oz» zoo .»ooEooo.» .ooo.»oo
-:zo o. omoozo o o»:».»nooo
»0o z.z n»0..»n.z .00zon
.oz»0...n500.nno.o o»o.onon
03» 0» »0..»n.z .ooz0n ooo
o. 500.nno.0 o 50.. n»ooz
-0»n o>.. .0 »oo5o>05 oz»

.500.nno.o .x» >.o5..»
o o. n»ooz:»n o>.. .0.
»oo5o0..>oo o>.»0..»no.
»noo. zoo 5o.uo.»

.0 oo.»ooo. .>..o0.
-..oo»m .oo.»o00zo 0..
-z0» o»o..»o.»»o oo..
zoo »oo5ooo.» .oo0.»oo
-:zo .0 nnooo»o..»0.»»<

aNxm
on

 

oo.n.ooo oxm

 

0: no»
zo.oo»»<

 

oo.n.uoo 0:»

 

oo.».no» »oo.o»

 

c0.».n0» .oozom

 

.oz
mo..ooz

 

 

zo..o»5. >..o»oox o.zoo.o.»
«.m.

137

.oo.»0on o>.»o..oo o. zoz:.oo.o

 

.Nu .xo»
.0. o>.»o..oo oon

.n»oo.o» oz» zo.oso.

.noo.>.on
oo.»ooazo .o.oo»n
zo»o.o. .o »0o..z
oz.>o.» o» zo..ooo.
»oo o.o.o.oz» n.
»0..»n.z .ooz0n oz» .N
..»...z.o._o
oo.»ooazo .o.oo»n
.0. n»oo5o..:oo. »oo5
0» ..o. no.3» oz» ..
..oozon oz» zo.o>o.

.oooo.o.z .o.0»no»

.0 oo.n.>o.» oz» oz z.oozn
no0.>.on onoz» zoo .z»0z .0
.500.nno.0 .oozono.» o o.
.0 o50z »o .oz».o >»o.oz»
\no0.>.on oo.»ooozo .o.oo»n
o» zo.».»oo o.o no.3» oz»

.noo.>.on zoo
oo.»oo...»ooz. oo.»ooozo
.o.oo»n noz0.0o.» n.z»
.o.o»oo o. .o0.zo5 »oz

. .ooo.»o0:zo\mo.o.oo. »0o
o.o no.3» oz» .0 nzooo oz»

.ono

-o.0.z .o.o»no» .0 5.0.
oz» o. >»o.oz» .oo.n>z»
o>.ooo. zoo .10» no
zo...»ooz. oz z.oozn
n.n0.z.. o.»n>0 z».3
no.3» z.0-.oo>-N\.-m
03» »0o .0 .oz»oz3
.>..o0...oo»n .oo.»oo
-=zo 0..z0» o»o..»0.»»o
oo.. zoo oo.»oo...»ooz.

».xN.
«N

 

.o0.»oo:zo
.o.oo»n 50.. zo>050.
oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»
on .noo.»o»»ozo .oo
-.n>z» o..ooo. .0 mo.
-o.oo. z».3 o.o..o»o.

»0o nooz »o0.zooz oz» .N
..zo» .0 oo.».o

-..oz oz» .ozo: zo»»o0

-.ozoz .. »zooa». oz. ._
..oozon oz» zo.oso.

.»oo».:no00 .ozooo»

o 50.. noo.>.on o>.ooo. zoo
.20» no zo...»ooz. oz 0»
o:o.»o00 z.:ozn »ooz:»n oz»

.»ooz:»n oo.»ooazo .o.oo»n
o no zo...»:oz. oz .o»oo.
oo z.oozn »ooz0»n oz» .o.0.
-o.oz» .»ooeoo..>oo .ooz0n
oz» o. oo.»o»»ozo .oo.n>z»
.o o»>» »oo o..ooo. .0
oo.o.oo. z».3 o.o..o»o. »0o
no0z 5o.zo.» .oo.n>z» n.z»
.050.zo>n no.oo»-n.o.zu

noz »ooz0»n oz» zmsaz» oo>m

.zo»»o.z .ozo. oo.»
noozzo .o.oo»n oz» o>oz
.o .zo» no zo...»ooz.
oz 0» o:o.»o00 z.oozn
»ooz=»n .ooz0n o.zz.5 o
»0o .0 .oz»oz3 .»..o0.
-..0o»m .oo.»o0...»ooz.

anm

 

oo.n.0oa oxm

 

oz no>
zo.oo»»<

 

:0.n.0oa ox»

 

oo.».no» »oo.o»

 

oo.».no» .ooz0n

 

.oz
»o..oo=

 

 

 

oo..-oo. z».oo= o....oz»o .o ...-o.o»z.

«Na.

138

 

.oo.n.ooz n..oo...0
mo..ooz .ooo. z.oz»:

.zoz.>

-0.» oz 0» noo.>.on
z.oz .o.oOn .ooz0n zoo
oooamoo. zoo zooo»n
.mo..ooz .0 z.oz oz»
.0 oo.»ooazo oz» o.
»n..o.oo»n o .o noo.
->.on oz» zoz.>0.» zoo
5o.uo.» .o»ooo oz» o.
zooo.» oz 0» »ooz:»m

..ooz0n oz» zo.0>o.

.»oo5:0..>oo o>.»o..»no.
»noo. oz» .0. oz.>0.» z.003
zo.z3 .oo..ooz .o z.oz oz»
.0. oo.oo.» o z».3 »oozn»n
oz» oz.>o.» z.oozn »0..»n.z
.ooz0n .o00. oz» .mo..ooz
.0 z.oz oz» .0. »ooo0»

-500 o...0o»n o o>oz »0o
nooz ». onaoooz o»o..»0.»»o
»oo n. 5o.um.» .o»ooo oz»

.oo.» on. oz»

o. zo>o.»»o n. o0.»no:o
o. 5o.mo.» .o»ooo oz» zoo
.o_.zo ..z» .o nzooo oz»
oo.»ooe .0. o»o..»0.»»o
n. 5o.zo.» .o»ooo oz»

.»ooz:»n

.: z.0-.oo>-» o .0.
»oo5oo..>oo o>.»0..»no.
»noo. zoo .»o..»

-n.z .oz»0oo o. 5o.oo.»
.o»ooo o o. »ooeooo.»
nan.o> »0..»n.z .ooz0n
.ooo. o o. »ooeooo.»
.>..oo...0o»m .oo.»o00zo
0..z=» o»o..»0.»»o oo..
zoo .»oo5ooo.» .oo0.»o0
-:zo .0 nnooo»o..»0.»»<

a.\o.
N

 

.noo.>.on

.0 >»..o00 zoo Eo.m
-0.» oz» o»o:.o>o zoo
.0».o05 0» no.0zooo.»
zn..zo»no o» n»oo.o»
zoo »0..»n.z .oozom
.oo.»o0.o:5500 .o»oo.»
o.ono. 0» no.3zoo0.»
zn..zo»no »nae n»oo.o»
zoo »0..»n.z .00z0m
.no»=o.5 oz 0»

m: .0. >..oz zoz.>0.»
oz 0» no0.>.on oooz»
-oo. zoo zooo»n zoo
»oo».0no00 .ozooo»
.... oz»

.0 n.oom oz» oo.»ooe
o. »n.nno 0» .ozooo»
500. oo.:0no. oz» .0.
oo.o.o.» oz.>0.» 0» n.
»0..»n.z .00zon .ooo»

N

.n»oo.o» oz» zo.0>o.

.»oo5oo.

-.>oo o>.»0..»no. »noo.
oz» .0. oz.>0.» z.003

n.z» .zo..o»5. omoaooo.
zoo zooo»n oz» .0 .ozooo»
zoo »oo».:nc00 .ozooo» o
.0 no0.>.on oz» no ..o3 no
.500. oo.oono. o o. noo.
->.on oz.>o.» o» oao.»o00

o.ooz. »o..»._o .ooo_ oz»

.n...zn owoamoo.

zoo uo.zoo. n.z »0.o>oz
.o»»oz 0» »ooza»n oz»
30..o z.003 n.z» .»o..»n.z
.ooo. .oz»0oo o. zo»ooo. n.
zo.z3 .zo..o»5. oo..ooz oz»
.0. 5o.uo.» o o. n. »oo5
-ooo.» o»o..»0.»»o »n05 oz»

.z..z0 .z

z.0-.oo»-.. oo .0. »oo5
-o0..>oo o>.»0..»no.
»noo. zoo .»o..»n.z
.oz»ooo o. 5o.oo.» .z
n:n.o> »0..»n.z .ooo.
o. 500. oo.oono. .>..o
c0...0o»m .oo.»o0:zo
0..z:» o»o..»0.»»o oo..
zoo .»oo500o.» .oo0.»o0
-:zo .0 nnooo»o..»o.»»<

mxz
.

 

zo.._ooz oon

 

oz no>
zo.oo»»<

 

 

o0.n.ooa oz»

 

oo.».no» »oo.o»

 

:0— a .00& —OO£Um

 

zo..oo:

 

 

zo..o»5. uo..oox

«Na.

I39

.oo.»0on o>muooooo o. zoz:_0o.¢

 

..o
z\m o0. o>_»ooooo

oom .oommzuoz
o.oou_..o oo.oooz

..00z0m
oz» >z zozooeeoooo

no Eooo0on .z» .oozom
soon oz» om »ooeouo.n
>z zoz_>0o0 oz ooo
EoomOLQ o»o_oo0oooo o<

..z. oo. Eoomooa .00zum
noon o .0 zoo. zoo Boom

-o.o _x» a .o >o___no__m>a

o0 zonoz a» ooz»_m0a
o..oozun ozh .Eoom0oa
_x» .oozonoon oz» mo.

u»_m_> oo».o .EooQOoa .zu

.zoo_onE.

omoamoo_ zoo zuooon oz»

.0 zozooo» o 50o. moo—>oom
o>_oooo zoo n»ooz:»n .th

.»ooeouo_a .zu manoo>
.o» .>__au_._u.om
.zoo_oae_ oooamoo_ zoo
zoooum no zo_.»»oozm
no! oz: z_.zu oEOLzo>m
o.ozoo z_0aooo>n~\_um o

 

 

.oozomooo o o. »oosouo_o o0. soomOon .oozunooo o o. oo. »ooeouo_o .oo0.»ou o_\m
.ouo. oz» zomoo>o¢ x ..oozum oz» zooo>o. o zoooo.ooo n»ooooo ozh zooo—o oz z.ooza z_.zo ozh uazo .0 onooo»o_o00ooo< «.
oo.o ooo oxm oz mo» oo.o ooo 0:4 :0 » no »oooo. o0 » no u oamm .02

. » zo.ooao< . z z a _ _ a .00z m _ oo.»oo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

zoo—one. omoauooz zoo zoooom

mum.

MO

.oo.»0on oo.»ooooo o» zoz:_oo.«

 

.a‘ .xm
o0. o>»»ooooo oon

.»oozon oz» zoo0>ou

.az .xm
o0. o>_»ooooo oom

..ooz0n oz» zoooso.

.z. .xn o0. o>»»ooooo oon

.cu .xm o0. o>.»ooooo oon

.zs .xm

o0. o>_»ooooo oon
.noann_ on :0 o.zo 0»
ooo...0 oo.oooz .ooO.
oz» zo»oo! n»ooooo
oz» .o0_»ou:zo o.-
uzao o»o.ooooooo ooo.

m~

.»~.o~

.mwxa
«z

 

.nu .xm o0.
o>»»ooooo oon .oczn

n»ooz n.oou_..0 mo.
-»ooz »oo0— zonoo>o¢

.zo.».»oo

n. ozn zo.zx 0» noo.
u>oon ..o o>zoooo z.oozn
zoo z__zo .xm oo no
nouz>oon zoo nooomoon
oo.»ouazo .o.ooan o0.
o.z.m_.o n. »coz=»n oz»
.n»ooooa oz» zoo0>ou

I

.>»_..z.__a>~ »oo

-o»» oz» z».3 scone.» .xn
oz» o. oao_»o00 zzaozn ozn
zoo .»ooz:»n .xm oo no o0.»
..ooazo .2023 ..0. 3333
n» ...»n zoo no: z__zo oz»

.zoz_>0oa

oz z.oozn zoooon zoo .»o
.»o .0 no0.>.on zo»o.oz
.Eoom0»a .z» o 0» zooo»nno
oz zoo .x» no oo.»oo

-azo .o.oonn o0. o_z_o__o
oz ozn »oz» zZzo oz» .0
n»nooo»o_ »noz oz» o. n. ».

.»ooz:»n z.0-ooo>

nz. o o0. »oo5ooo.a
soomooo »ooaconzan zoo
_xm nanoo> .o» ....»
no»._oonm .»ooeouo_a
zoo oo.»oo...»ooz.

z-xo
on

 

.oo_n_ooz n.oou»..0
oozoooz .o00_ z.ozo:

.noo_>oon »ooaoan o»o
u-oQOLan z».3 mo_»»on
.zom o o. »oE oz oou
nzooo ooz onaouoz .xm
no ooz»ou»._nno—o o0.
n»ooeoozacoo oz» »oo5
»0o nooz »ooz:»n oz»
.»oozun oz» zozooo.

.>.ao_zo0ouo o0.
zoEEoouOLo oz zzaozn zoo
z__zu .xm oo n» »ooz:»n oz»

..zo. 0» zo_.»nno_o

uoo oz z.oozn zoo .xm no
zo...»:oz. >.o»o_o90onooo»
oooz noz »ooz:»n oz»

.»ooz:»n

z.o-.~o>-~_ o oo. .zoo
nanoo> .xm .>_»oo_.»o
coon oo.»oo...»ooz.

«\o
N

 

.ooznzuoz n.zoo_..0
oo.oooz »oo0_ z.ozo:

.»ooeooo_o

»oonoon oz» o. o.oeoo
z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»
.»00z0n oz» zoooso.

.»oo5

-o»oae_ .o:n_> n.»ooz:»n
oz» o0 zooo—a oz z.ooz
n»nozaeo oooz oooz: .zo__n
oz» .0. .oozun couzzu.z

oz» »o >__o.»ooz_noo zooo—n
oz zzaozn »ooz:»n oz»

.zc__z\zo._ooe. >:25?
oz» z»_3 mo_zo03 o» mo.
-o.oo» zoo oooo_ooaxo z».3
zozooo» o 50o. no0.>oon
no>»ouoo 0n.o oz oooz:
.n»ooz:»n .xm o0. ooomooo o
o. »ooeouo_o »oonooa oz» o.
o»oeoo z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»

.»ooz:»n

z.0-ooo>an_ o .0.

zo__o oz» .0. .oozom
oom_zo_x nanoo> Boom
-o.o .xn .»..au.._ooan
.»ooeooo_o »oo0_»oo
-azo .0 nnooo»o»o00oaa<

mx~

 

oomnzuoo ozm

 

 

0: no>
zo_ooao<

 

co_n_0oo oz»

 

ooz»—n0. »ooooo

 

zo.».no. .oozun

 

oonn_

 

.oz
oo.»oo:

 

zoo.ooe_ >.o.»_:t >.o.o>om
«.m.

141

W
A tota1 of 16 of the 52 hearings he1d during 1979 are inc1uded
in the fo11owing narrative. In a11 16 cases the 1oca1 hearing

officer's decision was appea‘led.

MW
A1though the state hearing officer uphe1d the 10ca1 hearing

officeris decision in this case. there are noteworthy circumstances
that cannot be covered in the co1umnar format.

At the end of the sixth-grade year for this student. the schoo1
district recommended that teacher consu1tant services for the
emotiona11y impaired be continued and that the student be p1aced in the
seventh grade. The parents agreed with the continuation of teacher
consu1tant services but disagreed with the recommended grade p1acement.
They fe1t the student shou1d be retained in the sixth grade. It was
upon this issue of grade p1acement that the parents requested a
hearing.

During the summer after comp1eting the sixth grade. additiona1
medica1 and psycho1ogica1 testing was done. In a new EHPC meeting
before beginning the new schoo1 year. the student's e1igibi‘lity for
specia1 education was changed from emotiona11y impaired to 1earning
disab1ed. Services were recommended. as was p1 acement in the seventh
grade. The parents agreed with the change in c1assification and the
specia1 education services to be provided. They again disagreed with

the seventh-grade p1acement and reiterated their request for a hearing.

1&2

WhiTe a due process hearing was being schedu1ed by the pub1ic
schoo1. the parents p1aced the student in the sixth grade of a private
Bib1e Academy. An intermediate schoo1 district investigation of the
situation determined that the parents! right to a hearing had to be
upher. even though the student had been p1aced by the parents in a
private schoo1.

The 1oca1 sch001 district then initiated correspondence with
the Michigan Director of Specia1 Education Services and asked if a
hearing has to be he1d when the parents have taken a chi1d out of the
pubTic schoo1s and p1aced him in a private schooL. The response was
no. a1though the district cou1d choose to conduct the hearing if it so
desired. The hearing was he1d. and the 1oca1 hearing officer ru1ed
that the schooT district recommendation for p1acement in the seventh
grade was appropriate. The 1oca1 hearing officer stated in his
rationa1e that the decision rendered was actua11y moot. since the
student had been in a sixth-grade p1acement in a private schooT for the
past few months.

It was recommended that the student remain in the private
schoo1 p1acement for the remainder of the 1978-79 schooT year and be
p1aced in the seventh grade of the pubTic schooT at the beginning of
the next schoo1 year. The parents appea1ed the 1oca1 hearing officerus
decision. The state hearing officer uphe1d the 1oca1 hearing officer's
decision that the recommendation by the pub1ic schoo'l for p1acement in
the seventh grade was appropriate and that the issue of grade p1acement

was an appropriate issue for a due process hearing. The state hearing

1A3

officer a1so stated that parenta1 action predetermined any resoTution

that might have been rendered by a hearing officer.

W
This hearing was he1d for an identified autistic student in

order to c1arify a decision rendered by the same hearing officer
invoTving the same student. in a previous hearing (E1 #3 for 1978). A
new hearing was requested by both parties in order to have a more
precise definition of "a suitab1e student-teacher ratio."

Neither party appea1ed the 1oca1 hearing officer's decision
rendered as a resuTt of the September 25. 1978. hearing. which
primari1y supported the parents! position. Representatives of the
schoo1 district indicated that a c1ass size of 10 students to one
teacher is suitab1e. The parents fe1t that this was inadequate.

The 10ca1 hearing officer rendered the fo11owing decision in
the Ju1y 24. 1979. hearing:

1. It is recommended that the schoo1s emp10y an additiona1
instructiona1 aide in the program as 0ut1ined in the 0rigina1
decision.

2. The decision from the September 25. 1978. hearing shou1d be
impTemented. with the inc1usion of an additiona1 aide for a period
of 30 days in order to determine whether his or her presence is
required.

3. The sch001 administrator shou1d direct the schoo1 socia1
worker. aide. and a teacher consu1tant for the emotiona11y impaired
to visit the home in order to foster a coordinated home-sch001

effort.
4. The parents shou1d contact the schoo1 administrator with

any concerns about the daiTy progress of the student when efforts
through the schoo1 socia1 worker have proven unsuccessfuT.
The 1oca1 hearing officer a150 stated that because of the

amount of documentation concerning the unique prob1ems of this student.

lhh

additiona1 assistance may be warranted. It was a150 stated that there
was no 1ega1 basis for demanding a student-teacher ratio of 1ess than
10 to one. The parent appea1ed the 1oca1 hearing decision.

The state-Teve1 hearing officer genera11y agreed with the 10ca1

hearing decision but provided the fo11owing c1arification:

1. The student shou1d be served in a program as specified
under Ru1e 340.1741 of the Michigan Specia1 Education Code. and
shou1d be in a c1assroom with a maximum of 10 students.

2. The sch001 district was ordered to emp10y an instructiona1
aide in the program serving this student.

3. P1acement must be in a setting where there are regu1ar
c1asses in addition to c1asses for the emotiona11y impaired.

W

The issue of private versus pub1ic sch001 p1acement for a high
sch001 student was the focus of this case. The parents contended that
the student's emotiona1 impairment and 1earning prob1ems were not
improved by the specia1 education services he received during the
preceding sch001 year and that the recommended change to a se1f-
contained program for the emotiona11y impaired was not sufficient to
meet the student's needs. The parents further contended that their
chde's needs wou1d best be met in a specific private residentiaT
faci1ity 1ocated in another state and that the 10ca1 sch001 district
shou1d pay for the private-sch001 tuition.

The sch001 district contended that p1acement in the se1f-
contained program in the pub1ic high sch001 wou1d meet the 1east
restrictive environment requirements of PL 94-142 and provide an

appropriate program.

145

The 1oca1 hearing officer ru1ed that the se1f-contained
p1acement in the pub1ic sch001 was appropriate and a150 stated that
Artic1e VIII. Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution prohibits pub1ic
schoo1s from paying private-sch001 tuition. The parents appea1ed this
decision.

The state hearing officer supported the 1oca1 hearing officer's
decision. a1so citing Artic1e VIII. Section 2 of the Michigan Constitu-
tion as prohibiting pub1ic schoo1s from paying private-sch001 tuition

in and outside of the state of Michigan.

W

This hearing invoTved the same student and same issue as EI #13
for 1978 (June 15). In that hearing the state hearing officer ru1ed
that a hearing officer does not pick a specific bui1ding or c1assroom a
student shou1d be p1aced in. but dea1s with c1assification and the type
of programming a student needs to meet his or her particu1ar needs.
Specifics of a c1assroom program to meet this particu1ar student's
needs were then outTined. but no specific bui1ding or teacher was
mentioned. The 1oca1 hearing officer had recommended p1acement in a
specific budeing.

According to information contained in the 10ca1 hearing
officer's report for the 1979 hearing. this student remained in his
present program in the same bui1ding his parents desired. after the
1978 hearing was he1d. At the conc1usion of that sch001 year (1978-

79). the sch001 again recommended p1acement in a different budeing

1A6

serving emotiona11y impaired students aged 14 to 25 years. The parents
requested another hearing.

The 1oca1 hearing officer ruTed that p1acement in a specific
sch001 (acceptab1e to the parents) was appropriate for this student.
The sch001 district did not agree with this decision and requested a
state-1eve1 review. The state hearing officer ruTed that the designa—
tion of a particu1ar sch001 is the prerogative of the superintendent of
schoo1s. The fo110wing c1assroom criteria were stated as being necessary
for this student in order for his p1acement to be appropriate:

1. The student shou1d be kept with students who are re1ative1y
c1ose to the same 1eve1 of cognitive development and functioning.

2. The student shou1d be p1aced in a program with his chrono-
109ica1 age Teve1 peers.

3. The student needs programming in personaT adjustment and
opportunities for pre-vocationa1 training.

4. The student shou1d be p1aced in an environment where his
physica1 size wou1d not pose restrictions on his desire to
sociaTize and re1ate with others.

5. The student shou1d receive instruction from a teacher who
is specifica11y trained to dea1 with his cognitive and affective
needs.

6. The student shou1d continue to receive appropriate support
services in speech and socia1 work.

7. A new IEP shou1d be deve1oped which re1ated to the needs
specified in this decision.

W

The student in this case was enro11ed in the third grade of a
private sch001 and had been in the same sch001 since he started the
first grade. His parents became concerned over the 1ack of progress in
reading. ‘This concern was discussed with sch001 personne1 and resu1ted

in a request for psycho1ogica1 testing from the pub1ic schoo1.

lh7

Testing by a sch001 psycho1ogist and teacher consu1tant for the
1earning disab1ed was comp1eted. Resu1ts of this testing indicated a
definite reading difficuTty but were not fe1t by sch001 personne1 to be
severe enough to identify the chi1d as handicapped.

The parents were dissatisfied with the interpretation of the
eva1uations administered by the pub1ic sch001 personne1 and continued
to be concerned with the 1ack of progress in reading. The parents
requested further eva1uation from a specific university institute.
which was carried out. The resu1ts of these eva1uations (psycho1ogi-
ca1. specia1 education. and speech and 1anguage) were forwarded to the
1oca1 sch001 district. and an EPPC meeting was he1d.

At the EPPC meeting the parents contended that. based on the
outside eva1uations. their chi1d shou1d be identified as 1earning
disab1ed. Sch001 personne1 fe1t that a1though a reading prob1em
existed. the chi1d did not meet a11 the criteria required for
eTigibiTity as 1earning disab1ed. The parents requested a hearing.

Because of the 1ack of a singu1ar comprehensive eva1uation. as
opposed to subtests. and conf1icting interpretations. the 10ca1 hearing
officer requested a comprehensive assessment by an impartia1 third
party. Sch001 officia1s agreed to have this requested testing
comp1eted. but the parents refused permission for additiona1 testing.

The 1oca1 hearing officer rUTed in favor of the schoo1. stating
that a1though the student met four of the five requirements for
e1igibiTity as 1earning disabTed. it had not been documented that the

student dispTayed "an inabiTity to function in regu1ar education

148

without supportive specia1 education services."ias required by Ru1e
340.1713(d). The parents appea1ed this decision and requested a state-
1eve1 hearing review.

The state hearing officer ru1ed in favor of the parents and
determined that the student met a11 the criteria for designation as
Tearning disab1ed. E1igibi1ity under subpart (d) of Ru1e 340.T7T3 was
based on a past Teast restrictive environment triaT period. during
which the student attended his regu1ar c1assroom in the private sch001
with the c1assroom teacher receiving suggestions from a teacher
consu1tant for the 1earning disab1ed. These services and suggestions
were not considered sufficient to meet this student's specific needs.
particu1ar1y in Tight of his current age of nine and a ha1f years and
current p1acement in the third grade.

The state hearing officer further ru1ed that the student shou1d
receive services from a 1earning disabiiities teacher consu1tant for 20
to 30 minutes dai1y. with the focus being the deve10pment of reading
ski11s. A comprehensive eva1uation was aiso to be schedu1ed before the

end of the sch001 year.

W
This hearing was initiated by the parents. who fe1t that their

13-year-o1d son was not receiving a free appropriate pub1ic education
because the current IEP was not being provided as written. a previous
IEP was not adhered to. and educationa1 records had not been kept

confidentia1. Therefore. permission for re-eva1uation wou1d not be

1A9

given un1ess the parents had the right to decide what information from
the eva1uation wou1d be given to the schoo1.

The sch001 district took the position that they were providing
a free appropriate pub1ic education. that the previous IEP was proper
and foTTowed. and that any changes in the IEP were made because of
parent request. Sch001 personne1 a1so indicated that the re-evaTuation
was required by 1aw and that they wou1d need a copy of the psychoTogi-
ca1 report.

The parents a150 fi1ed a forma1 comp1aint on the above issues.
A response to the forma1 comp1aint. from the State Department of
Education. Specia1 Education Services Area. indicated that a hearing
was appropriate for the given situation because the issues were a
resuTt of both EPPC and IEP meetings.

The 1oca1 hearing officer rendered an independent decision.
The student was to be re—eva1uated by the pubTic schoo1 immediate1y.
The subtest sca1e scores. verba1. performance. and fu11-sca1e scores.
c1inica1 observations. and test resu1ts from the psychoTogica1 eva1ua-
tion were to be inc1uded in the written report. (Ninica1 impressions
and recommendations were to be given verba11y by the sch001 psychoTo—
gist at the IEP and not inc1uded in the written report. An IEP was to
be conducted immediate1y upon comp1etion of the re-eva1uation.

In the "Findings of Fact" section of the 1oca1 hearing
officer's report. it was stated that the parents' copy of a specific
IEP was different from the sch001 copy and that the past psychoTogica1

eva1uation was dated May 14. 1974. It was a1so stated that the sch001

150

had. in fact. changed the student's genera1 and specia1 education c1ass
schedu1e. but at the request of the parents. A1so found was the fact
that the parents did not receive notice of the right to appeaT a

May 12. 1978. IEP untiT September 1978. and that the parents had made
known on severaT occasions the concern for confidentiaTity of sch001
records.

The 1oca1 hearing officer a1so stated that parenta1 consent for
re-eva1uation was not required. and that the sch001 acted in good faith
in trying to obtain a re—evaluation. as we11 as making modifications to
the student's educationa1 program.

The parents appea1ed the 1oca1 hearing officer's decision on
the fo110wing three issues. Each issue wiT1 be presented separate1y.
f011owed by the state hearing officer's decision.

Issue_£1: Whether or not the IEP was in comp1iance with
PL 94-142.

The state hearing officer ordered that a new IEP be conducted
by a given date and that a11 requirements of PL 94-142 be met; A fina1
copy of the new IEP was to be forwarded to the state hearing officer.
If either party cou1d not agree with the new IEP. the state hearing
officer wou1d make the fina1 decision.

The state hearing officer stated that there appeared to be a
distinct possibi1ity that the schedu1ing practices used by the sch001
district provided unequa1 accessibi1ity to genera1 education c1asses
for speci a1 education students. since IEP's were he1d after schedu1ing

of c1asses for the foTTowing year had been comp1eted. Therefore.

151

specia1 education students were being forced to take whatever genera1
education c1asses were 1eft.

The hearing officer then stated that she wou1d 1odge a forma1
comp1aint under Ru1e 340.1851 of the Michigan Specia1 Education Code
and Section 121a.602 of the Regu1ations for imp1ementing PL 94-142.
a11eging a vio1ation of the 1east restrictive environment. equa1
treatment. and individua1ized program requirements un1ess a voTuntary
p1an of action was submitted to the Specia1 Education Services Area
within the State Department of Education within 30 days of receipt of
the state hearing decision.

1mm: Breaches of the schoo1's responsibi1ity to safeguard
student records have occurred. so approva1 for further testing wi11 not
be given.

The state hearing officer ru1ed that since the parents had
fiTed a comp1aint under the FamiTy Educationa1 Rights and Privacy Act
of 1974. and since the issue of confidentiaTity is not a hearab1e
issue. the parenta1 contention of breaches of confidentiaTity wou1d not
be addressed.

The issue of testing. however. was addressed. It was deter-
mined by the state hearing officer that a comp1ete comprehensive re-
eva1uation shou1d be comp1eted by the sch001 district before conducting
the IEP that had been ordered. The hearing officer noted that parent
permission for a re-eva1uation was not required. but the right to
contest a proposed re-eva1uation was provided through the hearing

process. That process had been fo110wed. with the resu1t being the

152

determination that current testing was necessary. The hearing officer
strongTy suggested that the parents encourage their chi1d to partici-
pate wi11ing1y in the re—eva1uation process.

Issue_£3: The Toca1 hearing officer did not Tevy strong enough
sanctions against the sch001 district for aTtering the IEP after it had
been signed by the parent.

The state hearing officer determined that this was not a
hearab1e issue.

A month after the origina1 state hearing officem's report was
issued. the fo110wing fina1 hearing decision was rendered by the same
state hearing officer.

Issue_£1: The IEP that was comp1eted and forwarded to the
state hearing officer is adequate proof that a new IEP was written to
appropriateTy meet the student's needs. This IEP was to be imp1emented
immediate1y. even though the parent did not avai1 herse1f to partici-
pate in the IEP process.

1§5u§_t2: The sch001 district made two attempts to provide a
comprehensive re-evaTuation. but the student refused to answer ques-
tions or have any discussion with an examiner. and simp1y said that he
was not supposed to take any tests or answer any questions.

Based on the fact that the sch001 district had made concerted
efforts to re-evaTuate the student. but both the parents and student
refused to a110w any testing. the state hearing officer re1eased the
sch001 district from any further action regarding the issue of

re-eva1uation.

153

Wow
The parents requested this hearing based on their be1ief that a

comprehensive eva1uation had not been comp1eted. the sch001 shou1d pay
for a tutor. they shou1d not have been charged for sch001 records. they
were denied access to sch001 records. and the sch001 shou1d pay for
summer programming.

The 10ca1 hearing officer ru1ed that a fu11 comprehensive
eva1uation was not comp1eted by a mu1tidiscip1inary evaluation team.
and the information upon which the determination of e1igibi1ity as a
1earning disab1ed chde was made was not comp1ete. Therefore. the
student did not meet the eTigibi1ity requirement. A new eva1uation was
to be comp1eted by a mu1tidiscip1inary eva1uation team.

The hearing officer a1so determined that payment for reproduc-
tion of sch001 records was to be returned to the parents. but the
request for sch001 payment for a tutor or summer sch001 tuition was
denied.

The parents appea1ed the 1oca1 hearing officer's decision and
requested a state-1eve1 hearing review. The state hearing officer
dea1t with five issues. Each issue is presented separate1y beTow.
fo11owed by the state hearing officer's decision.

.lgsng_£1: The diagnostic data were insufficient to form an
appropriate IEP.

The state hearing officer a1so ru1ed that the student did not

meet the criteria estabTished for a definition as a 1earning disab1ed

154

_student. Therefore. no need existed for the formu1ation of an IEP. No
new eva1uation was ordered by the state hearing officer.

IssueLtz; The student was denied a free appropriate pub1ic
education because the parents were ton that they wou1d have to pay for
a tutor to provide one-to—one services.

The state hearing officer ru1ed that the student had not been
denied a free appropriate pub1ic education as either a suspected
handicapped chi1d or as a regu1ar education student because the parents
had been informed that they wou1d have to pay for a tuton. Neither
testimony or evidence was submitted to support the contention that the
desired one-on-one tutoring was appropriate for this student. A1though
the state hearing officer noted that it was inappropriate for her to
give directives re1ative to genera1 education programming. it was
suggested that this student be continued in a remedia1 program
previousTy received and that sch001 counseTing services a1so continue.

‘lssue_£1: The parents were charged a fee for search and
retrievaT of sch001 records.

The state hearing officer uphe1d the 1oca1 hearing decision
that fees paid by the parents for the dup1ication of sch001 records
before the hearing be returned. The state hearing officer noted that
the FamiTy Educationa1 Rights and Privacy Act a110ws a sch001 district
the right to charge a fee for the dup1ication of sch001 records. How-
ever. the schoo1 district fee schedu1e and poTicy for record dupTica-
tion was not yet in effect when the request for records was made by the

parents. Therefore. since the sch001 po1icy took effect after the

155

parenta1 request was made. it was appropriate to have the fees returned
to the parents.

,lssne_£4; The parents were denied the right to inspect sch001
records before the IEP meeting and subsequent hearing.

ReTative to the issue that the parents were denied record
access before the IEP. the state hearing officer ru1ed that the parents
were not denied the right to review records. It was stated that this
a11egation appeared to be based upon interpretation of the word
"documented" in Section 121a.553(a)(2) of the Regu1ations for
imp1ementing PL 94-142. The parents contended that a11 information
given as part of the eva1uation for determining eTigibi1ity or
deve1oping an IEP must be written (documented) before the meeting. The
state hearing officer's interpretation was stated as being that
documentation of a report being given and the source of that report is
not synonymous with a written report.

The state hearing officer went on to note that the 1aw requires
that a11 information needed for an appropriate educationa1 decision be
presented and considered in the decision-making process. and that it be
documented that this was done. It was stated that this does not ru1e
out the presentation of ora1 information; it on1y requires that the
source of the information be documented.

Re1ative to the a11egation that the parents were denied access
to records before the hearing. the state hearing officer ru1ed that no
access to records had been denied. This a11egation by the parents

centered on the fact that notice of specific evidence sha11 be given

156

five days before the hearing. but the notice was received after sch001
hours. The state hearing officer stated that the 1aw did not require
that this notice be given during sch001 hours.

Issue_£5: The sch001 district shou1d pay tuition costs for
summer programming because it has taken three and a han months to
sett1e this case. and the student has had to endure confusion during
the past months.

The state hearing officer ruled that restitution or payment of
money for a11eged damages associated with a specia1 education hearing

is not within the authority of a hearing officer.

WWW
E1igibi1ity and p1acement were both issues in this hearing. At

an IEP meeting. sch001 personne1 recommended that a seven-year—o1d
Down's Syndrome chi1d who was then c1assified as educabTe menta11y
impaired and receiving programming in a c1assroom for EMI students
Tocated in an e1ementary sch001 have his eTigibi1ity changed to
trainab1e menta11y impaired and be p1aced in a faci1ity serving TMI
students. The parents objected to both recommendations and requested a
hearing. based on their be1ief that the chi1d shou1d continue to be
identified as EMI and receive his programnflng in the EMI c1assroom.
The basis for the parents! appea1 was that the EMI 1abe1 and program
wou1d provide the Teast restrictive environment and appropriate peer
mode1s for their chi1d.

The 1oca1 hearing officer ru1ed that the student was most

appropriate1y identified as TMI and shou1d be p1aced in a TMI program

157

as recommended by the sch001 district. The parents appea1ed this
decision and requested a state-1eve1 hearing review on both the
e1igib11ity and p1acement of their son.

The state hearing officer reversed the 10ca1 hearing officerks
decision on e1igibi1ity and determined that the student was e1igib1e
for specia1 education programs and services as an educab1e menta11y
impaired student; This decision was based on psycho1ogica1 reports
indicating a 1eve1 of functioning within the 10w educab1e menta11y
impaired range. or between the educab1e menta11y impaired and trainab1e
menta11y impaired range. In addition. both the parents and sch001
personne1 indicated that academic growth was occurring whiTe the
student was in the EMI program.

The 1oca1 hearing officer's decision on p1acement was aTSo
overturned. The state hearing officer ru1ed that p1acement in the EMI
program was both appropriate and in the 1east restrictive environment.
This p1acement was to continue for a minimum of one year. un1ess both

parties agreed otherwise.

.ILa1nableJMentallx_lmnnined_tz

At issue in this case was the appropriate p1acement of a 21-
year-o1d TMI student. The sch001 district recommended that the
student's p1 acement continue in a TMI program within a given sch001 for
his educationa1 needs. and that a 20-week part-time p1acement in a work
activity program in a separate faci1ity a150 be a part of the tota1

program. a1ong with continued speech and 1anguage therapy services.

158

The parents disagreed with this recommendation. stating that a
more appropriate program wou1d be fu11-time p1acement in the work
activity faciTity. with continued speech and 1anguage therapy and
physica1 education services provided by the sch001. The parents a1$o
stated that their son's educationa1 needs cou1d be better met at the
work activity faci1ity than in the TMI program and that the sch001
district shou1d pay for the cost of educationa1 programnflng at the work
activity site.

The 1oca1 hearing officer ru1ed in favor of the sch001 district
and directed that the p1acement and program as recommended by the
sch001 be imp1emented. The parents found this decision unacceptab1e
and requested a state-1eve1 hearing review.

The state hearing officer a1so ru1ed in favor of the schoo1.
but determined that the ha1f-time p1acement at the work activity site.
contracted for as an anci11ary service to the educationa1 program. be
continuous throughout the 1979/1980 sch001 year. rather than occur for
on1y 20 weeks.

In the "Rationa1e" section of the state hearing officer's
report. it was stated that the Michigan Constitution does not a110w
pubTic schooTs to contract with a private agency for educationa1
programs it a1ready provides. It was further stated that a student
p1aced in a work activity center must be assigned to and work under the
educationa1 direction of a specia1-education-approved teacher. The
faciTity providing the work activity component did not have an approved

specia1 education teacher. and there was not one p1aced there by the

159

sch001. Therefore. the student cou1d not be p1aced fu11 time at the

work activity site.

W

This case invo1ved a dispute between a sch001 district and the
parents of five chderen who were enro11ed in a program for the
trainab1e menta11y impaired within a 1oca1 sch001 district. When the
parents of the five students 1earned of the possib1e c1osing and
subsequent change of Tocation of this program. they requested a
hearing. The sch001 district responded in writing. stating that since
a p1anning and p1 acement committee recommended p1 acement of a11 five
chi1dren in a TMI program. a change in 1ocation of that program was an
administrative prerogative and therefore not an appropriate issue for a
hearing.

Notification to the parents that a meeting was being he1d to
c1arify the p1ans for c1osing the current program did not a11ay the
parents'4concerns. They again requested that they be provided their
due process rights and asked for a c1ass action hearing. Further
attempts to c1arify the matter to the parents were made in writing. but
the parents sent a 1etter to the State Superintendent of Pub1ic
Instruction. with copies to the intermediate sch001 district superin-
tendent and the director of the Office of Civi1 Rights. indicating that
they were fiTing a forma1 comp1aint against the sch001 district.

The parents a1so attempted to prevent the sch001 district from
c1051ng the program by requesting an injunction from the Judge of the

circuit court. but the injunction was denied. SubsequentTy. four of

160

the students were p1aced in a program in a different sch001 district.
and the fifth student was p1aced in a program in a third district.

As a resu1t of the forma1 comp1aint the parents fi1ed. the
intermediate sch001 district conducted an investigation. This investi-
gation was refuted by the parents. and an on-site investigation was
requested. An on-site investigation was conducted. After receiving
informa1 opinions from the Michigan Attorney Genera1's Office and the
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. the on-site investigation team
determined that the parents shou1d have the opportunity for a due
process hearing.

The intermediate sch001 district questioned the informa1
opinion obtained from the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped and
requested the State Director of Specia1 Education to obtain a forma1
opinion. In a subsequent 1etter to the intermediate sch001 districtks
attorney. the State Specia1 Education Director rep1ied that he wou1d
seek a forma1 opinion. but he a1so indicated that he be1ieved the
informa1 opinion was correct and directed that the requirements of the
investigation-team report be imp1emented without de1ay.

The director of the Office of Civi1 Rights. in a 1etter to the
intermediate sch001.district superintendent. directed that an impartia1
due process hearing be offered to the parents within 45 days of receipt
of his 1etter. The 1oca1 hearing was he1d within the a110tted time.

The 1oca1 hearing officer ru1ed as fo11ows:

161

1. The parents were denied their due process rights.

2. For those students whose trave1 time has been increased.
the principTe of 1east restrictive environment has not been vio-
1ateg: The educationa1 environment in the new schooTs is no more
restrictive than in the 01d schoo1. and p1acement there is approp-
riate.

The parents appea1ed the 10ca1 hearing decision on two issues.

These wi11 be presented separate1y. fo110wed by the state hearing
officer's decision.

Issue_£1: The 1oca1 hearing officer ru1ed that the parents
were denied their due process rights. but the b1ame must be shared by
the parents and the sch001 district. The parents contended that the
sch001 district must bear soTe responsibi1ity for the deniaT of a
hearing.

The state hearing officer supported the 1oca1 hearing officerfis
decision that the parents were denied their due process rights and that
the b1ame had to be shared between the parents and the sch001
district. In addition. the parents' contention that the existing IEP's
were vioTated when the students were moved from one sch001 district to
another was uphe1d. since a review of the IEP was necessary to revise
the transportation on each chiTcPs IEP. and the 1ack of a revised IEP
for each chi1d p1aced the provision of a free appropriate pub1ic
education in Jeopardy and constituted a cause for a due process
hearing. as we11.

155119.12

impartia1 manner.

The Toca1 hearing officer cou1d not act in an

162

The state hearing officer ru1ed that the 10ca1 hearing officer
was se1ected according to procedure. had his credentiaTs 1isted on the
state Tist of hearing officers that is sent to each sch001 district.

and was impartia1.

W
This case invo1ved a 23-year—o1d student identified as TMI and

receiving work activities training in a she1tered workshop setting.
For three summers this student and others were provided a summer
enrichment program in addition to the 180-day program. An IEP he1d in
November 1978 recommended a 230-day program for this student. A sub-
sequent IEP he1d in October 1979 recommended a 180-day program.

The guardian of this student cha11enged the recommendation for

180 days of programming. stating that the student is a mu1tip1y
impaired individua1 and is entit1ed to 230 days of programming. The
sch001 district maintained that the student was TMI and the 180 days of
programming was appropriate.

The 1oca1 hearing officer determined the fo11owing:

1. The student is emotiona11y impaired.

2. The recommended TBO-day program is inappropriate because it
fai1s to provide a program of sufficient duration to ensure a free
appropriate pub1ic education.

3. A 230-day program is aTSo inappropriate because the student
needs an individuaTized program for the emotiona11y impaired.

4. A new IEP must be convened immedi ate1y to consider the
studentfls individua1 needs as an emotiona11y impaired individua1

and must inc1ude at 1east 3O sch001 days beyond the 180-day
minimum.

The sch001 district appea1ed the 1oca1 hearing decision

reTative to the 1ength of the sch001 year. No other part of the 1oca1

163

decision was appea1ed. The state hearing officer uphe1d the 1oca1
hearing officer's decision to provide an additiona1 30 sch001 days
beyond the minimunn180 days. The state hearing officer stated that
a1though programs for different disabiTity areas are required to pro-
vide a specific number of days of programming. those figures required
(180 or 230 days) are minimums. and the appropriate number of days

shou1d be determined by individua1 student needs.

W
A sch001 district recommended that a student identified and

p1aced as an SXI student now be found e1igib1e and p1aced as a TMI
student. The parents fe1t that their chde shou1d continue to be
identified and p1aced under the SXI category. which required 230 days
of programming. and therefore requested a hearing.

The 10ca1 hearing officer determined that the student be found
e1igib1e for specia1 education as severe1y mu1tip1y impaired and
receive a11 services to which that designation entit1ed her. The
sch001 district appea1ed this decision and requested a state-1eve1
review. The issue of appea1 was whether the student shou1d be found
eTigib1e for specia1 education services as SXI or TMI.

It was the decision of the state hearing officer that the
student was e1igib1e for specia1 education programs and services as a
TMI student. The p1acement recommended by the sch001 district was to
be imp1emented. This decision was based on a beTief that the main
concern for this student was the 1eve1 of academic functioning and that

she cou1d function within a program designed for a singTe handicapping

16h

condition. The physica1 disabilities disp1ayed by this chi1d were fe1t
to p1ay a secondary ro1e to the 1ack of deve10pment in the cognitive

domain.

W

This case was extremeTy Tengthy and comp1ex and invoTved both
the TegaT and foster parents of a 10-year—o1d SXI chi1d. Two pre-
hearing conferences were he1d. during which the parents presented 50
issues of contention. A tota1 of 236 pieces of evidence were exchanged
(180 were parent exhibits and 56 were sch001 exhibitsL The 1oca1
hearing continued for f0ur days and took 47 hours to comp1ete. and
resu1ted in 1.198 pages of written testimony. Ora1 testimony was given
by 7 witnesses for the sch001 district and 13 witnesses for the
parents.

At an IEP he1d in March 1979. the parents wanted to know
methods that wou1d be used to meet the objectives deveToped for their
chi1d. who they fe1t was regressing. They did not sign the IEP report.
but did request a hearing regarding their sonhs free appropriate pub1ic
education. No specific issue or issues were stated.

The sch001 district responded in writing and asked that a
meeting be he1d to discuss the specific issues of concern. Subsequent
te1ephone ca11$ and correspondence did not resu1t in a meeting due to
fai‘lure to obtain a mutua11y agreeab1e time and p1ace. Sch001 district

personne1 then offered to arrange a hearing as soon as the reasons for

165

the request were identified in writing. In May 1979 the parents again
requested a hearing.

Between the time of the origina1 request for a hearing and the
time the hearing was fina11y he1d. a dispute arose over the access to
educationa1 records and the request by the 1ega1 parents that the
foster parents be treated as 1ega1 parents for educationa1 purposes. A
dispute a1$o arose over the rights of the parents. the foster parents.
and the parent advocate. to observe the chi1d in the sch001 program.

The sch001 district proposed two different dates in June for a
hearing. The parents and foster parents responded that both dates were
unacceptab1e. In Ju1y the parents. foster parents. and advocate
indicated in a 1etter to the sch001 that setting a hearing date
depended on having possession of disputed records. On August 28 the
sch001 district staff was directed to keep a11 persona11y identifiabTe
records concerning this student so that. upon request. the famiTy cou1d
review them» The sch001 district a150 decided to direct copies of a11
communications to the foster parents. even though they were not viewed
as 1ega1 parents.

The hearing officer who origina11y agreed to hear this case
withdrew on August 8. 1979. to attend to persona1 matters. The parents
wanted the hearing officer to ru1e on 50 issues. which were presented
to both the hearing officer and sch001 officia1$ just five days before

the hearing. Many of the issues invo1ved goaTs and objectives and

methodo1ogy used to achieve the goa15. specific requests based on the

 

166

parents' beTief that autism was the primary disabi1ity. and teacher
training and expertise.

The sch001 district contended that no matter what 1abe1 was
used. the goa1s and objectives for this chi1d were appropriate. and
that extraordinary resources had been expended to meet this studentus
needs. The sch001 a1so contended that educationa1 progress cannot be
guaranteed and that no data existed to show that the sch001 district
was responsibTe for the chde's 1ack of progress.

The 1oca1 hearing officer's 4S-page report inc1uded 47 findings
of fact. 12 conc1usions of 1aw. and 23 different decisions. The
hearing officer ru1ed that the student is SXI. is enro11ed in an
appropriate program. had an IEP that meets the requirements. and the
methods of instruction are consistent with the performance objectives.
It was a1so determined that the sch001 district did not schedu1e a
hearing within the a110tted time 1ines and initia11y fai1ed to a110w
the parents and their representatives to review educationa1 records.

The 1oca1 hearing officer a1so ru1ed that as 1ong as the
bio1ogica1 parents act 1ega11y on beha1f of their son. they sha11 be
considered the parents. A1though the foster parents are not the 1ega1
parents. with the Tega1 parents' written permission the foster parents
sha11 receive communications from the schoo1. copies of progress
reports. invitations to IEP meetings. and have the right to review
records and make copies. However. on1y the bio1ogica1 parents may sign

consent when a 1ega1 parenta1 signature is required.

167

The parents appea1ed 9 of the 23 decisions rendered. 6 of the
47 findings of fact. and 4 of the 12 conc1usions of 1aw within the
10ca1 hearing officer's report. In addition. the parents appea1ed for
a state-1eve1 review on 21 of the origina1 50 issues they presented.

In eight of the nine 10ca1 hearing decisions that were
appea1ed. the state hearing officer supported the 10ca1 hearing
officer's decision. In the ninth issue. the state hearing officer
rUTed that the status of foster parents and the 1ega1 education rights
afforded them is not a hearab1e issue. A11 six of the 1oca1 hearing
officer's findings of fact that were appea1ed were substantiated by the
state hearing officer. and no reason was found for disagreement with
the four conc1usions of 1aw that were appea1ed. In 18 of the 21
origina1 issues the parents appea1ed. the state hearing officer ru1ed
that the Toca1 hearing officer appropriate1y addressed the issue. On
the remaining three issues the state hearing officer rUTed that the

parenta1 demands were above and beyond the requirements of 1aw.

WW
ImpzizesLtZ

This case invoTved three-and-a-ha1f-year-o1d twin sisters with
cystic fibrosis. A sch001 eva1uation team sought to determine if
deve10pmenta1 de1ays were significant enough to impede the educationa1
process when the twins entered the pub1ic sch001 system. An EPPC
determined that no identified educationa1 handicap existed. and the

twins were therefore not e1igib1e for specia1 education and re1ated

168

services. The parents indicated their disapprovai and requested a
hearing.

The 10ca1 hearing officer ru1ed that both twins fai1ed to meet
the statutory requirements for specia1 education e1igibi1ity. and the
sch001 district was therefore not required to provide direct or re1ated
specia1 education services. The parents appeaied this ru1ing and
requested a state-1eve1 review.

The state hearing officer ru1ed that both chderen meet the
criteria of handicapped as defined in Ru1e 340.1709 of the Michigan
Specia1 Education Code. which defines Physica11y and Otherwise Hea1th
Impaired. The sch001 district was directed to p1ace the twins in an
appropriate preschoo1 c1assroom program for three ha1f-days a week.
When the IEPs were deve1oped. they were to inc1ude physica1 therapy in
the form of postura1 drainage for three 30-minute sessions week1y. for
each chi1d.

It was the opinion of the state hearing officer that physica1
therapy is specia11y designed instruction that these POHI chi1dren can
be taught to administer to themse1ves. not on1y for medica1 reasons.

but a1so to increase benefits from genera1 and/or specia1 education.

WW
An EPPC identified a three-and-a-ha1f-year-o1d Dowrfls Syndrome

chi1d as e1igib1e for specia1 education programs and services under
Ru1e 340.1710. Speech and Language Impaired. A recommendation for
p1acement in a preschoo1 program for TMI chi1dren was then made. with

services from a teacher of the speech and 1anguage impaired to be

169

provided. The parents visited the recommended program and indicated
that they wou1d prefer p1acement in an EMI presch001 program. The
sch001 district did not have a presch001 EMI program but contended that
the chi1d wou1d receive an appropriate education in the TMI p1acement.

The parents contended that the sch001 district position was
based on program avaiTabiTity rather than individua1 needs and that
even though their chi1d had Dowwfls Syndrome she functioned much higher
than TMI students. The 1oca1 hearing officer ru1ed that p1acement in
the recommended TMI presch001 program was appropriate because it has
personne1 who cou1d provide needed services in gross motor. 1anguage.
psychomotor. and cognitive deve10pment. The parents disagreed with
this determination and requested a state-1eve1 hearing review.

The state-1eve1 hearing officer determined that the recommenda-
tion for p1acement in a presch001 TMI program was not appropriate in
terms of physica1 setting and cognitive peer 1eve1s. The sch001 dis-
trict was directed to provide a presch001 specia1 education c1assroom
which wou1d p1ace the student with cognitive-1eve1 peers in the norma1
to TMI range. In addition. the sch001 district was directed to provide

speech and 1anguage services on at 1east a twice-a-week basis.

W
A breakdown of the major issues around which hearings were he1d

during 1979 is shown in Tab1e 9.

170

Tab1e 9.--Breakdown of issues and hearings by disabi1ity and hearing
number--1979.

 

Issues Hearings Invo1ved TotaTS

 

Identification EI #29 ’6: ’9; LD ’19 ‘39 ’49 ’59 ’99 ’12;
EMI #2. I7. #8; TMI #1. I4; SXI #2. I3;

POHI #1. f2 18 (35%)
Eva1uation E1 #8; LD #8. l9; EMI #8 4 ( 8%)
P1acement EI ’19 ’29 ’39 ’59 ’6' ’79 ’9: ’10: ’12:

#139 ’14) '15: ’16; LD ’49 ’59 ’10: #113

EMI ‘19 '3: #4: ’5: #6: ’79 ’8: ’99 #10; 34 (65%)
TMI ‘10 ’29 ’3; HI ’1: ‘2; SXI ’19 ’23

S/L I1

FAPE EI ’49 ’11: ’16; L0 #29 ’69 ’7: #89 '13; 16 (31%)
EMI ’4; TMI ’2: ’39 ’4; HI #1: ’2;
SXI #4; POHI I2

 

It shou1d again be noted that the tota1 number of issues is far
greater than the tota1 number of hearings he1d. This is due to the
fact that any one hearing may be centered on any one of the four major
issues. a11 of the issues. or any combination thereof.

As depicted in Tab1e 9. p1acement continued to be the primary
issue invo1ved in hearings throughout 1979. with 34 of the 52 hearings
(65%) invo1ving a p1acement issue. Identification of students p1ayed a
much Targer part in hearings he1d in 1979 than in the previous two
years. with 18 of the 52 hearings (35%) invo1ving a dispute over
identification.

A1though free appropriate pubTic education issues were in

dispute 1ess than the issues of p1acement and identification. 16 of the

171

52 hearings (31%) inc1uded some issue re1ative to the provision of a
free appropriate pub1ic education. The issue of eva1uation continued
to p1ay a sma11 r01e in hearings. with on1y four cases (8%) inv01ving a
dispute re1ative to eva1uation during 1979.

Tab1e 1O i11ustrates parent representation at the 52 1oca1
hearings he1d in 1979. In 1979. parents were represented by an advocate
in a1most one of every two hearings (48%). Attorneys represented
parents in one-fourth of the hearings. In on1y 1O hearings (19%) did
the parents represent themse1ves. In four cases (8%). the parents were

not represented.

Tab1e 10.--Parent representation at hearings--1979.

 

ii

 

Parent Representation Number of Hearings
Attorney 13 (25%)
Advocate 25 (48%)

Se1f 1O (19%)
Not represented 4 ( 8%)
Tota1s 52 (100%)

 

Tab1e 11 i11ustrates sch001 district representation at the 52
1oca1 hearings he1d in 1979. In 1979. directors of specia1 education
represented sch001 districts in 44% of the hearings. Attorneys
represented districts one-third of the time. whi1e superintendents
spoke for their district in on1y two cases (4%). In two of the

hearings the sch001 district representative was not stated in the

172

hearing officer report. Of the nine other representatives. three were
coordinators of p1anning. monitoring. and data co11ection at an
intermediate sch001 district. and two were directors of operationa1
programs. 'The remaining three were a sch001 psychoTogist. an

e1ementary principa1. and a principa1 of a faci1ity for TMI students.

Tab1e 11.--Schoo1 district representation at hearings--1979.

 

 

Sch001 District Representation Number of Hearings
Attorney 17 (33%)
Superintendent 2 ( 4%)
Director of specia1 education 23 (44%)
Other 8 (15%)
Unknown 2 ( 4%)
Tota1s 52 (100%)

 

Tab1e 12 i11ustrates hearing decisions at both the 10ca1 and
state 1eve1s during 1979. As can be seen. 1oca1 hearing officer
decisions supported the sch001 district position 67% of the time in
1979. Loca1 hearing decisions supported the parent/student in on1y 17%
of the hearings. In five of the hearings (10%). the 1oca1 hearing
officer incorporated parts of both positions. In three hearings (6%).
the 10ca1 hearing officer rendered a tota11y independent decision.

Of the 52 1oca1 hearings he1d in 1979. 32 of them (61%) were
appea1ed. In 23 of those cases that were appea1ed (66%). the 1oca1
hearing officer supported the schoo1. Of those 23 cases. the state

hearing officer a150 supported the sch001 district in 19 of the 23

173

 

 

 

Awm V m zoo V N zoo.» m zonoz NN .».oz NM zooo_v Nm ..ozo.
oo_n_ooz
Awoo_v ~ ... ... ... Awnzv N Awe v m »oozoooozo_
noo_»_noo »o
ANmmV _ Awnzv N ... ... Awozv m Awe—v m zo»oLOQLMoow
... ... zomwv _ zonoz m Awaqv : ANN_V m “among noocoaasm
... ... ANN_V 5 zone. a. AN... MN zooms mm .0050. aucooaasm

oo_n_oon z»0z »oooom .00zom zo_oooo<
»oozoooozo_ zo»oooaoooo_ zooo>o. zooo>o. oozE:z ”Mumwuwm

 

_o>oz o»o»m

 

_o>oz .ooOz

 

.m.m_--mco_mzuoa

mc_omo=--.~_ o.zo»

17h

appea1s. or 83% of the time. In four cases (17%) the state hearing
officer supported the parents.

Of the nine 1oca1 hearing decisions that favored the parent.
four (44%) were appea1ed. In three of those four appea1s (75%). the
state hearing officer ru1ed in favor of the sch001. In the remaining
one hearing. the state hearing decision was in favor of the parents.

In 1979. five (10%) of the 1oca1 hearing decisions incorporated
parts of both the sch001 and parent positions. Three of these deci-
sions were appea1ed. In tw01(67%) of the appea1s the state hearing
officer a1so incorporated parts of both positions in the decision. In
the remaining one case (33%). the state hearing officer issued an
independent decision.

In three of the 1oca1 hearings he1d in 1979 (6%). the hearing
officer rendered a decision independent of either the parent or sch001
district position. Two of those decisions (67%) were appea1ed. and in
both cases the state hearing officer a1so rendered an independent

decision.

175

COLUNNAR PRESENTATION OF
ISSUES. POSITIONS. AND
DECISIONS--1980

176

.oo.»0on o>.»ooooo o. zoz:_oo_«

 

.»ooz:»n oo.»

-ooazo .o»ooon o no oo.»oo
-...»ooz. oo. n»ooEoo_:ooo
>o0»:»o»n oz» n»oo5

oomo0_ 0o »ooz=»n oz»
..ooz0n oz» zoooso.

.z_»zo

zoo.ooe_ >__ooo»»oeo oo
no o0_»o:o_»o00 »ooooon
o» oo.»o»ooooooz o»o:oozo
n. oooz» .nnoooooo ozos
.oz o..ou ..oz» znaoz»_<

.oo_»ou:zo
...ooan Lo. >»...z.n_.o

»oo o»ou_zo. o» ooooz»>o 0:
n» oooz» .»ooz:»n .. oo no
no0.>.on oo.»ooazo .o.o
noon o0. o—z»m_.oo. zooo.
oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»

... no zo...»ooz»

oz 0» o:o_»ooo z.oozn
»ooz:»n z.0-ooo>-z.

o »oo oo ooz»oz3 .>_.oo
-..-ooo» oo.»oo...»ooz.

mzxc

 

.o0_n_ooz n..ou_..0
mo_cooz _o00» z.ozo:

.oo_eoo»oz »ooooo

ooo...o oo.oooz oz» zo.zz
.>»___uo. z»_aoz .oucoe
»oo_»oo-o» oo o. zoz_>
-0oo oz z.oozn Eoooooo
oz» .» oo_Eoo»oz 0» zo..ozoo
no: oo.»o:_o>o o.o»o_zo>no
< .zoo.ooE. >__oo0»»0eo
oz» .0. zozooo.» o 3:33
»ooza»n oz» .E:E»o_E o n<
..ooz0n oz» zooo>o.

.noo.
->oon »ooooan »oo»_:nooo
zozooo» z».3 ozooo z»:
oo.:moo oz» o. oo.»ooo.»
-ooo >z zo>oon »noz oz ooo
ea. zo»o»n... z._zu as»

.»ooE»ooo» zoo oo.»ooazo
oo. >»»__oo. o.o»o.zo>no
»oo_»oo-o_ ooozuau o o.
zooo»n zoo ..u zoo»6oo»oz
oz z.oozn .ooooEoo.ooo
»ooo»»ouazo n.z n»oo..o
».onoo>zo »oz» ooouoz

o 0» nooz»o zoo ..one_z o»
o>_»o:on_z n. »ooz:»n oz»

.»ooeooo_a ozoom

-z»: oo_auoo .0 oo.»
-o:o_»o00 o0 >»_._uo.
o_o»o_zo>no »oo_»ooao.
zoo zo»..m 50 .w .>..o
-o...oonm .»oo5ouo.o
zoo oo.»oo...»ooz.

mxm

 

.oo_n»ooz n.ooo_..o
mozoooz .ooo_ z.ozoz

.o»o.LQOoaoo

n. .oOzon oz» >z zozoo5
-Eoooo »ooeooo_o oz»
..ooz0n oz» zoo0>o.

.»ooEo0o_>oo

.ooz0n oz» 0»o_ n»ooeo_o
o>_»oooo zoo zoo nzzo zoo
.neooc .o:z_>_zc_ n.z._zo
oz» nnoozzo »oo nooz
.o»ozoooLoooo» >.zo.z n.
zozooEEOooo »ooeooo_o oz»

.oo.»»on oo.»ooazo

»oooooo oz» o. oo.»oo

-ozo .oo_n>zo zoo .naoozo
.oozzooo z».3 .n»ooz:»n ..
oo. nno.0 zoo.o»ooo-._on

o o. oo.» »ooo n» »oo:
-ooo»o o»o..oooooo »noe oz»

.»ooz:»n z.0-ooo>-m_ o
oo. »oosooo.o .oo0_»oo
oazo .0 nnooo»o»oo0ooo<

ax:

 

.ooz»ooo_oxo .oz».o.
.0. o>wuooolc o)”.
.o»oonoz oom .oo.n

-»ooz »oozoooozo_

.o»o»oo0oooo

n. »o_o»n_z .ooz0n

.ooo— oz» o.z».t nonno_o
oo.»ooazo .o.ooon zoo
oo.omoo o. »ooeooo_o
..ooz0n oz» zooo>o.

.o»o»n ooz»0oo o. zo»ooo
»oo5»ooo» o...ooon o o»

oz z.oOzn »ooeooo_o n.z»
.»ooeo0o.>oo o>_»o_o»noo
»noo_ oz» oz 0n.o z.ooz
zo.zz .»ooeouo_o .oz»ooz
n»noo o noo.:ooo z__zo oz»

.o0_»oo:zo .o»ooom

o. noooz n zoo n»ooz m .0.
zoo—ooo. >:oo0_»o.._o oz»
.0. oooonno.u o o. n. »ooz
-ooo.o o»o-ooooooo »noe oz»

.»ooz:»n

z.0-ooo>-m. o oo. o»o
-»ooooooo no) »ooEooo.o
_o_»ooz_noc »oo .0
.852: £23583
.»ooeooo_o .oo0_»ou
-azo .0 nnooo»o_oooooo<

.~\:
«~

 

.oo_»oa.o>o oo
z».3 zoooooo 0» zo»ooozz
no) »ozo»n_z .ooz0n oz»

.»oozon oz» zooo>ou

.zon:.oo

no: oo_nn_eooo nos.» oooz»
»noo_ »< .Eoomooo »oo»m
zoo: o o» »oosooo.o .ooz0n
-o.o o ooo.n z_»zo oz» o»o
-:.o>o 0» o0_nn_Eooo »oooo
o» zon:.oo zoz n»ooooo oz»

.o»oo.o_»ooo o» oo_n:.oo
zoo o>_nnocouo >..oo

-.nxzo oo.oz no zoan .oo—
->ozoz o>_»o:on_z zoo o»o_o
-ooooooo_ .0 n»oo zo»ooooo
»o >.31.. - n.z e__zu oz»

.oo_»o:.o>o o0.
»oono00 o>mo »0o zzaoz
n»oooo. .zo»o:.o>o oz
o.zozn u..zu ooo.n-oc»
o »0o .0 ooz»oz3 .>..o
-o...uoom .o0»»oa.o>w

».\z

c.

 

oo_n.uoa ozm

 

 

02 no»
zo . 38¢

 

o0_n_ooo oz;

 

oo.».noo »ooooo

 

cO—u—GO& —OO£UW

 

.oz
ao_oooz

 

 

8:3... ...-822.»
on».

177

 

.o0_n_ooz n.ooo»..o
oc...oz .o»o. o.»o.:

.n»ooz:»n ..o o» .o»
-ooeuo»oz oz z.oox .ooz0n
.oo»a_oo oz» 0» zooz o>oe

< .ooo_o oozo» >zooo_o
noz 3023 o. oooozo oz»
.»oozon oz» zooo>o.

.ooo>

mo_zooooo oz» no mo_z._:z
oeon oz» o. o.zo__o>o

oz z.oozn Eoouooo £00.
unno_o oz» .ozzooz o» o.z
oo. ».oo..._z ooo noo_»o
-:»_n zoz .»ooEooc_>oo »oo»
-n_nooo o nzooo »ooz:»n oz»

.EoooOoa

oEon oz» o. »oo5ooo_o
o:o_»o00 z.oozn »ooza»n

oz» .nzooo »ooz:»n .o»o»

o0 zonoz zoo .o»ozooocooo
no) .oz»ooo 0» mo.z__az

ooo soc. n»ooz:»n .u oo.
£00onno_o o .0 »ooeo>os oz»

.ooz»0oo 0» no.

-z».oz »on»ooEo_o ooo
so». eoocnnozo o oo.
.>05 .0 nnooo»o.coooooo
oz» £23....»on
.»ooz:»n z.ouooo>-m o
oo. »ooeooo.o .ooo_»oo
-azo .o nnooo»o_ooocoo<

o~xm

 

.zo3o_>oo

oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»

.0 nzooo oo.»o»ooAnooc»
oz» .Eoooooo oz» .0
oo.»ozoEOo ooo: .nzooo
oo.»o»ooonooo» n.z »ooE
0» zoomznoz Eoouooo o0.»
.uao»no. oo o_ o»oa_o_»
-ooo z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»
..ooz0n oz» zooo>o.

.noez» ..o »o

zon: oz 0» o:o_»ooo z.oozn
oo_>oon .xo» zo»ooooon
-.oozom ..ooz0n Eo...

zoo o» mo_»»om .0 noooE o
no Anazv o0_»o»c0onooc» 0..
-zao no.n: ooz_noou 0» o>oz
oo>o »oo z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»

.zoo_:ooo___»nn_ oo.»o»o0o
onooo» .xo» ._ oo.5oo»oz

0» zo3o_>oo oz z.oozn
»ooEom_nno .xo» oz» —w\~

o. zoo .o0_»o»o0onooo» o».
-zao oo_n: o. mo_o_oo» oz_>
-o»o z-aozn ..o»n oo.»ooazo
.o.ooan ..m\~ 0» cm\m oo..
»xo» >z oz z.oozn zo»ooo
n_._xn o 0» oo.»o»ooonooo»

.»ooz:»n .. zo...»

-ooz. z.ouooo>-m» o oo.
nooz>oon oo.»o»oonnooo»
.0 nnooo»o.oo0cooo oz»
.>._ou.._ooom .oo.»ou:zo
o__z:o o»o.»oocooo ooo.

zxm

 

.oo»n_uoz n.oou_..0
monsooz .o00» z.ozo:

.n»ooz:»n zoo.ooe_
>_.ooo_»oeo >_ooo>on
oo. Eoowoon zo»ooo

o o» »oo5ooo_a »ooooao
n.z o:o_»ooo z.oozn
zoo .u n» »ooz:»n oz»
. .ooz0n oz» zozooo...

.500» oooaonoo o o.
zooo—o oz z.oozn o: .n»ooz
.:»n zoo—one. >__ooo_»05o
».ooo>on oo. ooomoon zo»ooo
o o» zooo»n oz 0» ooo.»
-ooo »oo z—oozn zoo ..u »oo
.o» »oo. o» n» »ooz:»n oz»

.zoo_ooa_ >__oo0_»

-oEo >.o»o>on oo. Eoo00oo
zo»ooo o »o »ooEooo»o »ooo
-oao oz» z».3 oao»»oou 0n.o
zoo ..u no zo_._»ooz_ oz 0»
o:o_»ooo z.oozn »ooz=»n oz»

.z__zo

z.0-ooo>-m o oo. »oo:
-ooo_o »ooaoonzon zoo a»
nanoo> .u .>__oo_.»ooom
.»ooeooo_a .oo0_»oo

nzzo .0 nnooo»o_oo0oooo
zoo oo.»oo...»ooz.

wxw

 

.oo_n_ooz n.coom..o
mowoooz .ooO. z.ozo:

.zcooz z».ooz .o»ooe
oz» z»_3 oo.»oooo000
o. zo»ooooo soon

-o»o zoo oz» o. zooo—o
oz z_:ozn »ooz:»n oz»
.»oozon oz» zoooso.

.Eoom0oo

.o».onozooo o>m»o.c»noo
-ooo o o. zooo—o oz 0» »no
-oo»o_ »noz n.z—.zo oz» o.
n. »_ .o>.»o_c»noc 00» n.
»ooeooo_o zozooEEOooo oz»

.o_zo»ooooo

oz a... o.zo: >:zuc
.o»—onoz o»o>_oo o0 o»o»n

o »o n:»o»n »oo.»on-»:0 o0
»oo_»oo-o_ oo .oz».o oo »oo...
-ouo.o .zoooz z»_ooz .o»ooe
>»_anEOo o z».3 o0_»ooo
-oooo o. zo»ooooo .zoo_ooi_
>__ooo_»oEo ».ooo>on oo.
soouooo zo»ooo zooo—o>oz
>_zoo o oz z.ooz »ooe
-ooo_o o»o..oOLGQo »noE oz»

.z_o-coo>-~_ o
oo. »oo5ooo_o .ooo_»oo
-azo .0 nnooo»o»oooooo<

«x»

 

o0_n_uoa ozm

 

 

oz nu>
zo.oono<

 

o0.n_ooa oz»

 

o0_»_n0. »oooo.

 

co.»_no. .oozun

 

.oz
oo.»oo:

 

 

zoo—oo.... 3.2.0.3..»
oon.

1178

.oo.»0on o>_»ooooo o» zoz:.oo.«

 

.n»ooz:»n o»

oo. eoocnno_o zoo.o»ooo
-..on o o. zooo—o zoo
zo.zon.z uo.o.oo. no zo..
-_»ooz_ oz z.oozn »ooz:»m
.»ooooa oz» zoooso.

.noo.>oon
o>»»oooa:n ».oo o>_oooo zoo
zo.zon.z oo.o»oo. no zo...»
-ooz. oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»

.zoozooez >..oo0_»oeo oz»
.0. ooooooo zoo.o»ooo-..on
o o. zooo—o zoo zoo—on

as. >__ooo_»oeo no zo_._»
nooz. oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»

.»ooz:»n oo»oomooz
-o_z z.0-ooo>-z o oo.
»ooeooo_o .ooo_»ooazo

.0 nnooo»o_oooooao

zoo oo.»oo...»ooz.

ax:
n.

 

.oo.nnaon_z .oz»oa.
oo. oo.»oon o>_»oc
-coo oon .noo_»~noo

z»0z zo»oooooooo.

.onoo n.z»
.0 ooznnaon_z .oz».o.

oo. oo.»oon o>_»ooooo oon
.noo_»

-»noo z»0z zo»ooooo00o_

.nznoz oo.:moo o :0 n»oo

noon 0» o.zo__o>o ozoE

»oo ooo n»ooomc nnooooc. .z
.nnocoooo ocanooo
>.o»oo:ooo 0» zone oz
»0oooo zoo u.._oonn »oo

ooo no>_»oo~zo zoo n»ooz .m
.zoz_>

-o»o »o o»ozooooooo 02 .~

.o0_»ooo»n

.o» .0 n»oz cm. ooz»

oooE noz—zooo »ooz:»m

.n_noz oo.

-oooo o oo n»ooooo o» o.zo
-__o>o ozoe >zooo_o ooo
n»ooooo nnoooooo zoo .oo»
-».oz >zooo.o no>_»oomz0
zoo n»ooo o»o.ooooooo

noz .»n_oocoz» .ooo_»oo:ooo
oo ooo. no0.>oon mo_>»oooo
>zooo_o n. .n»oz .ooz0n
om. ooz» oooe oo.:ooo

»oo no0z »ooz:»n oz»

.n»ooooo nno.

-oo.n zoo .no>_»oomz0
zoo n_ooo .»o .ooo>
.ooz0n zozoo»xo oz:_oo_
noann_ o..mooom .0.»
an_»:o no zonoomo_z z.0
-ooo>-» o oo. o0_»oo:zo
o__z:o o»o—oooonoo ooo.

~_\~
«~—

 

.o»o_onooooo n» .oooon

noon .ooz0n >z zozooE
uEOooo no »ooeouo_. .N
... n. »ooz:»n oz» ..
..ooz0n oz» zoooso.

.oo_»ou:zo .o»ooon

o. »ooeooo_o >oo oo.:ooo
»0o no0z zoo zoo.oos. >__o
-oo.»08o »0o n. z..zu oz»

.600. oooaonoo zu.z oo.oaa
o o. zooo—o zoo zoo.oo

us. >__oo0_»oEo no zo...»
nooz» oz z_:ozn »ooz:»n oz»

.»ooza»n z.0-ooo>-~_

o oo. »ooEooo_o .oo0_»oo
uazo .o nnooo»o_oooonoo
zoo oo.»oo...»ooz.

._\m
.—

 

.co_n_ooz n.oouz..o
mc_cooz zooo» z.oza:

.o»o..o0oooo n. .oooOnooo
»0..»n.z .ooz0n »z zozooo
-6000. no »ooEouo_n oz»
.»oozon oz» zozooo.

.zo»oazo00
ooo no_»_>»»oo oo.»ooazo
oo.:moo 0o oooz) mo.z__az
o o. zon30z n. Eoomooo oz»
.0 »ooa onaoooz o»ozooooooo
c0 »oonnoooo n. ooz» »ooE
-o0o_>oo o>_»o_o»noc oooE
o n. .ooo0nooo »oozun >z
zozooEEOooo »oo5ooo.n oz»

.nzooo

.ooo_»ou=zo n.»ooz:»n

oz» »ooo o» o»o—ooooooo
»ooeo0o_>oo o>_»o_o»noo
»noo_ oz» n. soomooo .o>o»
-»oozoooon o_»n»»0o\.um
0..—ooan o o. »ooeooo_.

.»ooEooo
-_>oo o>_»o.o»noo »noo.

.0 oannz oz» .»..oo
-5an .8323 9.:
-o.»n_»:o z» 2. z.0-coo>-m_
o oo. »oo5ooo_a .oo0_»ou
uazo .0 nnooo»o»o00ooo<

Co.
.12
o.

 

cozn_uoa oz»

 

0: no>

 

zo_oooo<

 

c0_n_uoo ax»

 

oo_»_no. »oooo.

 

:o_»_.oa .oozun

 

.02

 

mo.ooo:

 

3:3,... 5.8.3..»
82

1179

.oo_»oon o>_»ooooo o. zoz:»uo_¢

 

.ozoom z». 0»
zo»oeoco zooozoo no:
z__zu .ooooooe_ no:
ozooo z»z o» oo_»oo»o¢ .n

.nou_>con »oo».:n
-oou .ozooo» .0 £00.
-nno_o oo.»ooazo .o_o
noon .0 >._oz oooz ooo
noz—ooo. »oozo»n oz» .N
.»».._zon.z oo_oooo_
o noz »ooz:»n oz» .—
.»ooooo oz» zoco>ou

.ooo_..o
oo.»ooz o oo. o»o_ooooo

uoo n. oo_»oo»oo .o oann_
oz» .zo_zon_z oo.oooo.

oz» .0. »oo»_0nooo .ozooo»
o 50.. oooo»n.nno o0 zo.zo
-n_z oo.oooo_ oz» .0. nno.0
o o. >oz ooo o30z ooo z».3
ozoom z». oz» o. zooo_o oz
z.oOznzoo.noo.>oon zo»o.o.
zoo no.65oooooo oo.»ooazo
»ozooon noomoooo .zo.zon_z
oo.o.oo. n. »ooz:»n oz»

.n3o_ oo.»ooazo

.o.ooon .o oooon oz» zoo>oz
zoo »0..»n.z »oozon oz»

.0 o>_»ooocooo oz» n. oo.»
..oo»oo .0 oann. oz» .oo_>..on
zo»o.o.. ..o Eocmooo oo.»ooazo
_o_ooon >oo oo.:ooc »0o
nooz zoo >»_ _ .zon_z oo.o..oo.
o o>oz »oo no0z »oozo»n oz»

.ozoom z»z oz»

o. zoo.o»oo oz z.oozn
»ooz:»n oz» »oo oo
.oz»oz3 oo_z:_uo_ .»ooz
1:»n z.0-ooo>o~. o co.
oo.»ooozo o__z:o o»o..
-o0cooo ooo. zoo .»ooe
-ooo_o .o0_»oo_._»ooz.

z~\o_

 

.oo_n.ooz n.zoo_..o
mouoooz .ouo_ z.ozo:

.»ooz=»n zo.zon_z
mo_ocoo_ o no noo.

u>oon zoo nEoomooo o0.»
-ooazo .o.ooon oo. o.z.m
-..o »0o n. »ooza»n oz»
..ooz0n oz» zooo>ou

.»ooza»n zo.zon.z
oo.oooo» o no no0.>.on zoo
nEocaooo oo.»ooszo .o.ooon
oo. o_z_m__o n. »ooz:»n oz»

.zozzon_z

oo.oooo. no >».__z_m__o oo.
o..o»..o oz» »oo5 »oo nooz
zoo .nou_>oon zoo nzooo
noon oo.»ouozo .o.ooon oo.
o_z_m_.o »oo n. »ooz:»n oz»

.»ooz:»n z.0-ooo>-z.
o .0 oo.»oo...»ooz.

m-xo.

 

.oo_»ooo_oxo

.oz».o. .0. oo_»oon
o>_»ooooo oom ..zoo
o. o5 50.. >»,._z
-_o__o zoocozo 0n.<
.n»ooooo oz» zooo>o.

.zoz_>0oo »0o no; Eoco0oo
.ooo.»oo:zo oz» .0 »ooo
_o_»oonno oo no: ». »oz»
.00.. .EoooOon 0» oz»

o. zoz~>ooo no_»_>_»oo
.0 oo.»oo._o:z o oz
z.ooz zozooEEoooo no 3
.»oozon oz» zoc0>o.

.»oz .00zon oz»

oo.o:z .ooz0n »o zozz>ooo
oz z_aozn >ooooz» .oo_n>zo
zoo .ooo_»ooaooo .»ooz:»n
oz» .0 nzooo oofo: oz» »oo...
o» »oo_o_..:n »0o »az .»oon
-noooo n. Eocoooo Eooonno.o
>oz-..:. zonoo0.o oz»

.»ooz=»n oz»
.0 nzooo o=o_o: oz» »ooE

o» »oozoz..:n zoo o»o..oooo
-oo n. zo.zon.z oo.o.oo.
oz» .0. Eoco0oo Soconno»o
>oz-..:. zon0o0oo oz»

».00zon »o zoz_>ooo

oz no0.>.on »o zoo

»o z_30zm »»ooz:»n o»
zo...»:ozz z.0-.oo>uz

o .0 nzooo oz» »ooE 0»
o»o_ooocooo om. oz» n.
.>__oo_._ooom .oo_»ou:zo
u_.z:o o»o—zoo.ooo ooo.

«m

 

.onou n.z» o0 »ooEEOo

o oo. oo.»oon o>.»oo

-ooo oom .»ooz:»n n.z»
c0. o»o.oaooooo n. noo.
uz__az >oo»ooEo.o »ooco.
-..z 03» o. »oo5ooo.o oz»
..oOzon oz» zooo>o.

..ooz0n o50z

no; c_ zozz>oca oz o.zozn
EoLOOLQ oz» .Eoomoca oo.»ou
nzzo _o_ooon n.z o0. »oozon
»oooo.._z o zoo»»o 0»

o>oz »0o z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»

.>oz

~\_ .oz»0 oz» .0. Eocmooo
oo.:moo »ooooao oz» o. oo.
-»o»n »ooz:»n oz» z».3 .>oz
«\— co. onooo z.oozn no.
-z__:z »oooo...z o o. 500.
-nno_o oz oo o. »oo5ooo_.

..oOzon o50z n.z o. ooze
-Eoon0co n.z ..o o>_oooo
z.oozn »ooza»n oz» »oo
.0 .oz»oz3 .>:oo_._ooom
.»ooz:»n z.0-.oo»-.. oo
oo. »ooeooo_o .ooo_»oo
nzzo .0 nnooo»o.oo0ooa<

o~\~
«N

 

.... o»o..o0oooo oo
oo_o>oz »noE .00zon oz»
zoo .zoozoosm omoamoo_
zoo zoooon zoo zo.zon.z
mo.o.oo. n. »ooz0»n oz»
.»ooooo oz» zoo0>ou

.noo.>oon o0.»

-ooazo .o.ooon Lo. o_z_m_.o
o.o.o.oz» zoo .zozzonzz
oo.o.oo_ n. »ooz:»n oz»

.noo_>oon

o0 nooomooo oo.»ooazo
.o.ooon co. o_z_o__o »0o
n. o.o.o.oz» zoo .zooooo
-.zooz »oo n. »ooz:»n oz»

.»ooza»n
oo».oo.ozo_z z.ocooo>-»
o .0 oo.»oo...»ooz.

.N\»

 

co_n_uoo oxn

 

 

02 no»
zo_oooa<

 

co_n_uoo oz»

 

ooz»—no. »oooo.

 

oo.»..o. .oozun

 

oann.

 

.oz
_oo.oooz

 

zo—zrn_o oo.oooo»

oom—

1130

.oo.»0on o>»»ooooo on zoz:_oo_z

 

.o_zznnoa no oo.»oo
-azo .o.oooo o»o. o0.»
-o.oo»o_ z»»x .EoomOoo

_. zoo.o»ooo-._on oz»
o. »ooEooo_o o:o_»o0»
.EooaOco n.»ooz:»n
oz» .0 zo»oo—3000 o no
oo.»ooa. z.oozn .xo.
.0. »oo»_anooo .ozooo» .~
..zo. no
zo...nno_o oz z.oozn

»:z .o» no oo_»oo..
-_»ooz_ oo. n»ooeoo_:c

-oz >u___z_u__o oz»

»oo5 »0o no0z »ooz:»m .—
.nooz»
-»noo z»0z zo»oooooOuo.

M

.nzooo

noozoo> n.z o» oo_zc000o
oo. zoEEozmooo zoo zoo.ooe»
>_o_»_0s ».ooo>on no zo...»
-ooz— oz z.oozn »ooza»n oz»

.zoc_ooe_ >__oo0.»oeo

oz» .0. Eoom0oo zoo.o»oou
-..on o o. zooo—o zoo
zo.zon.z mz_zz~o. no zu_._»
nooz. oz z.oozn »oozo»n oz»

.»ooz:»n z.0

-ooo>-m_ o oo. »ooeooo.o
.oo0_»oo:zo o»ozooOLooo
zoo oo.»oo_._»ooz_

w.\__

 

.n__o»oz .oz».o.
oo. oo_»uon o>_»oo
-ooo oom .no0_»_noo
z»0z zo»oooooooo_

.zoz_>0oo oz »nas
»ooooz» .oo_n>zo
zoo .ooo_»oo:ouo

.»oonnoooo »0o mm. :0
oo_»o»ooE:ooo .»oon
-noooo .. zon: n»_oz
»oon zoo .zoz_>0oo oz
»nae oo.»o»ooonooo» .m
.o»o.ooocooo »oo n.
»oo».:nooo zozooo»
.zo. o >z zoz»~=.o>»
..zo. zoo o»

no zo»oom_noz >.o»o
-»ooooooo n. »oozo»m .—
..00zon oz» zooo>o.

o
.

N

.o»o—oaooaoo no zoz_>oco
zoo ... oz» o. zo»ooE:ooz
oz z.oozn oo.»o»»0onooo»
zoo .»o .». .0 no0.>.on
zo»o.oz ..zo. Lo. »oo»_:n
-ooo .ozooo» o >z oo.»oa
-.o>o oo 50.. »_.oco z-aoo
»ooz:»n oz» .o.o»oo o. »oo
-zoOoon . »oo.o»—ooo; »noo_»
-oEo oo noz »ooz:»n oz»

.naz oo.:uoo o noz_o
>__o.nnooo:n »ooz:»n oz»
ooo.n oo.»o»ooonooo» .o.o
noon .0. zooo 0o n. oooz»
zoo .zoo_ooe_ >__ou_n>zo
oz» .0. »oo»_:noou .ozooo»
o >z o0_»o:_o>o oo zooo
»0ono0z»ooz:»n oz»..zoo_oo
us. z»_ooz on_zzoz»o o0
>__oo_n>zo zoo zo.zon.z mo.
-o.oo. no no0.>.on zoo noooa
-o.o oo. >.__o:c ...»n nooz
»az .zo.._ooe_ >_.ooo»»o.oo
no >»_—_z_o._o o0. o..o»..o
oz» »oo... »oo nooz »ooza»...

.»ooz:»n

z.0-ooo>-»_ oo oo.
Aoo.»o»ooanooo» zoo .»o
.»o .o no0.>.on zo»o.o..
oo.»ooazo u..z:o o»o..
-oooooo ooo. zoo .oo.»
-oz—ooo .oo_»oo_._»ooz.

o_\__
a.

 

o0_n_uoa ozm

 

02

 

no>

zo_oooo<

 

o0_n_ooo oz»

 

oo_»_noo »ooco.

 

zo_»_noz .oozun

 

oo.»oo:

 

 

oo_z.._z nz.zzooz
cum.

181

 

..ooz0n o»o>_oo

o o. »oo5ooo_o o»o»n
-.o-»:o zocozo0.»oaoo
.0 »nou oo. o.z.nooonoc
»oo n. »0..»n.z .oozom
..ooz0n oz» zoo0>o.

.»oooo oz» >z zooo—o

no: »ooz=»n oz» zo.zz

o» .oz—oo.. o.» Eocmooo
o»o>_oo o .0 »noo oz» zooo.
z.oozn »0..»n.z .ooz0n oz»

.»ooso>_o>o_ n._oozon
oz» »ooz»_3 >_Lo_:o_»ooo
.32: oz» :8: 5:3...
onooE» »0oooo »oooo oz»

.»ooeooo_o .ooz0n
o»o>_oo o»o»n-.o-»:o
o0. o.z.nooonoo >_.o.o
-ooo_. n. oz: .»oaou
oz» .0 zoo: o no! oz:
»ooz:»n z.0-ooo>-m_ o
oo. »oo5ooo_o »ooo_»oo
-azo .o nnooo»o_oooooo<

m\~_

 

.zooozco

ooo: oo.—onoooo oo. »n_mo
-.ozo>no c0 .ozooz .o_oon
.00zon o zoo a» co.
»oo»_ano00 zozooo» o .0
no0.>.on .o» o. _o>ooooo
z».3 zozooo» o >z >__ou
o_._oonn »zmoo» Eoom0oo o
oo. ooon no: zooo 02 .3o.
>z zoozaooo >»_o_._ooon
oz» o>oz no>_»oomz0 zoo
n»ooo oz» .oo_»ozooEE00oo
»0..»n.z .ooz0n oz» z».3
»oo»n_nooo >._o_»oonno
no) zocozoo Eocmoco oz»
.noo_»

-.noo z»0z zo»oooooooo.

.oozooz .o.00n
.00zon zoo Oz .0. »oo
-».anooo .ozooo» o .0 noo.
->oon o>_oooo z.oozn »ooz
-:»m .o»o..oocooo »noe oz
z.ooz no.»__.zon_z oo.o.oo.
.0 oooo oz» o. _o>0oooo
ooo_zo.t z».3 .ozooo» o >z
»zoao» £00onno_o oo.»ooozo
.o.ooon < .»ooz:»n oz»

.0 nzooo oz» mo_»ooe »oo
ooo zooo..o nonno_o oo.»
-oonzo .o.ooon zoo .o»omoz

.»ooeooo_n nno.0 oo.:moo
oo.ooz.nooo oozz .n»ooz:»n
.oz»0 o» nzooooooz >__o_»
-oo»oo oo.oz »oazoOo n.»ooz
-:»n oz» .0 >»_._zoz0oo

oz» ooz_nooo »noe .ooz0n
oz» .Jo. >z zoo—zooo >»_o..
-.ooon oz» o>oz zooo_o>oz
no>.»oomzo zoo nzooo oz»
zoo .o»o—»oo.ooo ooo u...
oz» >z ozoE noo_»ozooeeooo¢

..oozooo»

oo.»oonzo .o.ooon oz»
.0 _o>0oooo .0 oo.o zoo
no>_»oomzo zoo n»ooa .o
>».u_._ooonv oo.»ooozo
o__z:a o»o.»oooooo ooo.
zoo »ooEooo»o .oo0.»oo
-ozo .0 nnooo»o_oooooo<

¢\~_

 

:0_n_uoo ozm

 

 

0: no»
zo_oooo<

 

oo.o—ooo oz»

 

oo_»_noo »oooo.

 

ooz»—n0. .oozom

 

oo.ooo:

 

 

zo.zon.z oo.oooo»
can.

1(32

.oo.»0on o>_»ooooo o. zoza_uo_«

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oo_»o:E»no_
ooo.nno_o >oz-..oz
oz.>ooo ..ozn »0..»n.z
.ooz0n oz» zoo oo.»»on .EoooOLo
oOznxoozoo. n»oz ..oz 200.. oo..:onoo .oozon
zooo—noz ».ozn »ooz:»m .m sz o o. .33: oo.oz
.nzooo .mo_o_oc» .oo0_»ooo> zoo .zu no zo.._»ooz_
...o»oz .oz».o. .ooz.>.zo_ n.»ooz:»n zoo .oo0_»ooo>ooo oo zooo—o .Eoomooo »ooz:»n z.0-ooo>-»_ o
oo. o>.»ooooo oon oz» »oo5 »oo nooz a». .~ oz z.oozn nmnozoEo ooo: .z» o o. zo>oon zoo .z. oo. oo.»ooazo o»_z:o o»o
.noo_».noa z»0z .o ..z» n. »ooz=»m ._ .»oe oo.oz »0o ooo »ooz:»n ooz» .oz»oo .z» no zo...» -.oo0cono ooo. zoo .»oo5 z_\~_
n»ooo zo»oooaoooo. x .oo_n_ooz »oozoooozo. oz» .0 nzooo .o:z_>_zo_ oz» -ooz. oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz» -ooo»a .oo_»oo_..»ooz_ «m
.»o..»n.z .»oosooo_o
»oOzon .ooo_ oz» o.z».l o zoan co. onoooxo oz»
zo»ooo. Eocmooa o o. oooz z.oozn »0..»n.z »oozon .»o..»n.z .ooz0n .ooo_ oz» ._:u no zo_._»ooz_
zo»ooazo >_o»o_coooooo oz» zoo .>»__.oo. _o_»ooz o.z».l zo»ooo_ n»ooz:»n .zu »ooz:»n .ooz0n zo_z o zxm
.oo_n»ooz n.ooo»..o oz ooo »ooz:»n oz» -.noo oooz-z~ o o. n. »oo& oo. Eocm0oa o o. n. »oo: oo. »ooEooo_o »oo0_»oo .n\m
oo.»ooz .ooo. z.ozo: x ..ooz0n oz» zoco>o. -ooo_o o»o—zoo.ooo »noe oz» -ouo_o o»o_zooooao »nos oz» -ozo .0 nnooo»o_oooooo< z
.n»ozoon_z omoomoo_ o. omzo .noo_>oon omoam
. .Eoomooo .zu .ooz0n n.zoox »oo.o...:n o>oz »oo -oo. zoo zoooon o>_oooo
zm_z oz» o. »oo5ooo_o oz» z_z Eoouoco .zw oz» o. noo 0» ooo—»ooo zoo EocQOoo ._:u no zo_._»ooz_
uo.:o.»ooo >z zo>oon oz nzooo» oz» onaoooz zoo—one. .xw zoo.o»o00-..on _o>o_ »ooz=»n z.0-ooo>-z_ o
»noz z.ool »ooz:»n oz» motooz oz» .0. Eoomooo o o. -.oozonquz o o. zooo—o ..o. »oo.ooooi .3023 «(a
x ..oozon oz» zo..0>o. zooo—oozzSOzn »ooz:»n oz» oz 3an »ooz:»n oz» -ozo .0 nnooo»o_oo0ooo< n
fi»o.o»w_z.oozonmo_oozzm_oo
o o. zo»ouo_ no; soon
..zu no zo_._»ooz. oo.o »ooooau. .nzooo _o>o_
.»o..»n.z oo.ooz >_o»o_ooooooo noz ozn -ooo z».3 oo.»oo.»o_oon
-zm.oo o o. zo»oo0. ooon zonoz» oo>o .ooooz_noc .0 zoo z»oe oo. oo.»oomo»o_ ..zm no zo...»:oz.
-o.o .zu »oonooo oz» o. »0..»n.z .oz o. Eooaooa az oEOn z».3 seconno_o .zu »ooz:»n z.o-»oo>-__ oo
o.oEoc z.oozn »ooz:»n oz» oo o. zooo—o >.o»o_ooooooo oo o. »ooEooo.o »ooooau oz» .0. »ooeooo_o .ooo.»oo z_\m
x ..ooz0n oz» zooo>o. ocoe oz z.oox »ooz:»n oz» o:o_»ooo z.oozn »ooz:»n oz» -azo .o nnooo»o.ooocoo< N
.Eooonno_o .n»ooz:»n zoo—one.
.zm zoo.o»ooo-._on o o. omoamoo_ zoo zoooon zoo .n»ooz:»n .z. oo. .z..zo z.0-ooo>-o_ o
zooo—n zoo _:u no zo...» n»ooz:»n oz .0. oooonno_o o eooonno_o zoo.o»ooo-._on o oo. »oo5ooo_o »ooo_»oo
.oo.n_ooz n.ooo_..o nooz. oz z.oozn »ooza»m o. zooo»n zoo a» no zo...» o. zooo»n zoo .zm no zo...» uazo .0 nnooo»o_ooooooo m_\n
oo.»ooz .ouo_ z.ozo: x ..ooz0n oz» zozooo. -ooz. oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz» -ooz. oz z_aozn »ooz:»n oz» zoo oo.»oo...»ooz. _
oomn.uoo oxm wu_owun< oo.n_ooo oz» o0_»_n0. »ooooo o0_»_no. .oozom oonn. mozwuo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

zo._.ae_ >:35: o.z-use»
cam.

183

.o0_»oon o>.»ooooo o. zoz:.oo.o

 

.onou.oz» :0 n. _o»oz ..oz»..:.
..o. 523... o3 »ooooo oon
.8239 o zosn z:.. o»
n»o_o_..oz»_oo: .o»ooz .0
.»ooz zoo .oz»0 zooo z» .3
oo.oOu o» zooooooooo o.zo:
no.»oo..nzooo_oo:»_:o
zoonao_o._oon.»ooza»n
oz» n»ooE zo.zz ooooz_ no.»
o »oo... zo»ooonooo» oz ooo
»ooz:»n oz» zo.zz o» .00zon
o »o oo. »ooazo u. 32. o»o
-.oooaoo oo.. o zoz_>ooo
oz»n0E»ooza»noz».n»oo
Loo oz» 0» onoooxo »ooz»;
.oo_»_noo »oozoooozo.

.o_z_nooonoo >__o.oooo..

oz z.oozn »u_o»n_z .ooz0n
zoo_zuzz oz» eco .zzo> 3»:
o. oo.»ooozo o._z:o o»o..
-oo.nao oo.. o 0» zo.».»oo
0n.o n. »ooz:»n oz» .o.0.
-oooz» .zoo> to: o. »ooz:»n
oz» zooo... 3.2.03 zoz zoo
»ooza»n oz» .0 nzooo .o.o»
-»oo zoo noo.m__oo oz» »oo&
o» zoo.zu_z z. .o.»...»~.
0o ooo: oooz» zoo.£oo»oz
zo»oo» »oo0_mo¢ ooo—zo_t <

.»o..»n.z

.ooz0n oom.zo.: oz» o.
zooz o.zo._o>o no! ooooooo
.ooo_»oo:zo o»o.ooooooo

c< .zo0> 3o: .0 o»o»n

oz» o. oo_zoo»»o n. »ooz
-:»n oz» .ooz0n o._z=nooo o
0» nzoa. o__z:a .o »oosxon
n»_z_z0oo oo.»:»_»no0u
ooo—zoz: oz» zoo .nonoooao
.ooo_»oo:zo oo. »oo no!
.oo»oou .ooo_oo¢ ooo—zoz:
o >z ozoe .450» so: o.
oooz nzooo o o. »ooEouo_.

.noo.»o_>

-ooo nooza._oo zoo »ooE
-ooo.o .ooz0n o»o).on
o»o»n-.o-»:o oz:_oo_
noonn. .»ooz:»n .z» z.0
-ooo>-~. o oo. oo.»ooozo
o.»z:a o»o..oOLQQo ooo.
zoo »oo5ooo_n .ooo_»oo
-nzo .0 nnooo»o.oo0ooo<

aux——
on

 

.noaoom ..oEn o. .0 .».oz
-z.>.zo_ .oz».o EOOonno_u
oz» o. >ooooz» zoooon
o>_oooo o» n. »ooza»n oz»
..ooz0n oz» zooo>o.

.eoocnno.o

oz» .0 oz_n»:o »n_oo.oz»oo

zoooon oz» 50... £960.... :0.»
-o_:o_»oo zoo»»osz_>»zo_ oo
o>_ouo» z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»

.oo.»»on
sooonnofi. oz» o. »:z .»n.m0.0
-z»oo zoooon oz» 50... 3.3:
»ooozz oo.on z» .1 .oozuoo» oz»
>z ooz»»on ooo.nno_o oz» o.

zoz_>ooo oz z.oozn »ooooz»
zoooon zoo o0_»o.:o_»o<

.800»
.320 oz» .0 »oo oo o.
zoz.>ooo oz Eoomooo oo.»
-o_:o_»oozoooonzo~__o=
-z_>_zo_ zoz—oozn ...—.o».
.23on .»oozo»n .t» z.0
Logic. o ..o. oo.»ooazo
o__z:o o»o.»oOLooo ooo.

cmx»
.mux»

 

.oooz__zo zooo
.3313...» .0. 5300..»
o.oocnno_o o o. zoo: ooo
n>oz-._oz nzzo—.o.ozo.
o zoo...z oz 3:2» 2 .z» .N
..z» n. z»_zu .-
.»ooooo oz» zooo>o.

.Eoomooo .o»ooo o o.
zooo—o oz zoo .o» no zo...»
-ooz. oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»

.zooz o

nos.» n nooz>oon »oocoz»
.oo0_»ooauoo zoo zoooon
o>.ouoo zoo zoo_ooe_ omoom
-oo. zoo zoooon no zo...»
nooz. oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz»

..z» no zonoo

-mo_z >_»oooo:o z._zo
»oozonooo o .0 »oo5ooo_o
zoo oo.»oo...»ooz.

»~\z

 

.ooo>

.00zon .muowm_ oz» .0.
EocmOoo .x» o o. zo__0ooo
oz ..ozn »ooz:»n oz»
..ooz0n oz» zoo0>o.

.n»ooz:»n .z» z»_3 zooo—o
oz »oo z.oozn zoo Eoooooo
.2. oo o. zooo—a >.o»o_o
-oooooo »noe n. »ooz:»n oz»

.EoouOoa .z» o o.

zooo—a >_o»o_oooonoo oooz
oz z.ooz »ooz:»n oz» .o»o.»
-00cooo »0o n. Eocuoco .z.
oo o. »ooeooo_o »ooooao oz»

..2» no zo...»:oz.
»ooz:»n z.0-.oo.-. o
oo. »oo5ooo_o .oo0.»oo
.azo .0 nnooo»o_c00coo<

.~\_

 

K

.noeonoo ooo» »oozon

oo. ..o—zooo oz» o.zo.oz
nzooz 03» >_o»oE_x0.ooo
__»o:oaoz»ooozooo_z_n
-noa no o00n no o.ooz z.oOzn
n.z» ...ofizon oz» oo>o
Eoooooo oz» 5 o.»o.»ooo o»
zozo— .o oz z.oozn oz ...0»>oz
-oz n. »ooz:»n oz» o. »oo...
-o>0ooe_»ooooo.o onaooon
.»ooooo oz» zoo0>o.

.ooee:n oz» oo>o
n>oz on. zoo>oz ooo—»oOo
z.oozn eoom0oo oz» .nzooo
n.»ooz:»n n.z» oo.»ooe .0.
o»o..oooooo »oo n. n>oz oo.

.o5.» .0 zozooo

zozoo»xo oo oo>o oooo
-zoo»»o ooouoco z».3 >_o>_»
-.noo no»o_oocoo z»30oo
.o»o.>ozoz o0 »ooo_»ou:zo
»oz» o»oo_zo_ »0o oz o»oz
o.zo__o>< .>oonnoooo »oo n.
nzoo»»o »ooz:»n oz» .o»ooo
>».>_»oo 1.03 oz» »o soon
-ozoooo>.oozon zozoo»xo o<

.ooo> »oozon oz»

.0 z»ooo_ oz» no: oann_
u...uoan ..o» .- zo...»
nooz. »ooz:»n »oozoOoon
-»noo o oo. oo.»ooazo
o_.zoo o»o.»oooooo oo..

..\o
_

 

o0_n_uoo ozm

 

oz

 

no»

zo_oooo<

 

ooznzooo 0:4

 

oo_»_no. »oo.oo

 

zo.».»o. .oozun

 

oann_

_uohwuo:

 

 

zoo.ooo. >__o»oo: o.zoo.o.»
can.

18h

.oo.»oon o>_»ooooo o. zoz:_oo.z

 

.n__o»oz .oz».o.
oo. o>.»ocooo oom

.onoo n.z» o0
nzmo»oz .oz».o. o0.
oo.»oon o>_»ooooo oon

.zoozoos.

z»_ooz onzxooz»0 co >_.oo
-.n>zo zoo zo..ooE. >__o
-:n_> oz» .0. n»oo»_:no00
zoo .zoo_ooe_ omoamoo_ zoo
zoooon oz» .0 .ozooo» .»o
.»o o 20.. no0.>.on »ooo.z
oz:.oo_ z_:0zn zoo .ooE
-Eon oz» oo>o zoz—>0oo oz
z.oozn »oz .o»o—ooooooo no:

.oo.»»on

»oz» o» zooo..o oz ooo ».
zoo .zoczoos_ >__o»ooe >—
uoco>on oz» .0. .o»ooo o o.

.»oo.o_ zoo—ooo.
>.o.o>on z.0-z»ooe

-.. oo oo. oo.»ooazo
o__zao o»o.ooooooo ooo.

 

 

 

 

.noo_».non z»0z .o .noo.».noo z»0z z_.zo oz» >z zo>_oooo sooo zoz—>0oo oz ooo oo.:Eocmooo zoo .»ooeooo_o .oo.» .x»
n»ooz zo»ocoooooo. x .0 n»ooo zo»oooacooo. -o.o oo.»oo>oo»o. ».ooo oz» o»o—zoo.ooo zoo o»o:ooz< -oz—o>o .o0_»oo_._»ooz_ o~
.Eoomoco .z» o o. o.o5o.

n>o3_o z_aozn »ooz:»n
oz» zoo .Eoooooo .zm oo o»
»oo5ooo_o ooos z_:0o oo.»oo

..zm no zo...» -...nno.o .zm oo ooo»:. oz» .»ooEooo_o ..z» no zo...»:oz.

-ooz. >.o»o.ooooooo »noE o» onaoooz .2m 0» .x» 50.. .z» »ooooao n.z o. zooo—o oooz >.noo_>ooo zoz

oz z.oox »ooz:»n oz» zoooozo oo.»ou_._nno_o n.z o.oEoo »az ..zm no zo...» oz; »ooz:»n z.0-ooo> «\o
x ..ooz0n oz» zooo>ou o>oz »oo z.oozn »ooz:»n oz» nooz. oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz» cow o .0 oo.»oo...»ooz. .
o0.n.ooo con 02 no» oo.n_ooz oz» oo_»_no. »oooo. ooz»—no. .oozom oann. .oz
. . zo_oooo< . o.oooz

 

 

 

 

zoo—one. >._o»oo: ».ooo>om

can»

 

 

185

 

.oozuoo» oo.»oonzo
.ozooom o» »ooooon
oz.>ooo o» zoooznno
oz 0» n. »oo»_:nooo <
..o>o. »oonooo »o
o.oEoo 0» ». zoo »o .n
.»ooz:»n oz» .0
oo_>ozoz zooo o»ooo__
-oeo o» oo.»oo.._zoe
ooz>ozoz o. zo.».zn
o0nooo o zn_oo:.
»nao »0..»n.z .oOzom .~
.o»o_oo0oooo n. ooze

J

.ooEE:n oz» oo>o noo.
u>oon »o zoo ». o>_»o0ooon

.o»o.coooooo n. no0.>.on
». zoo »o o>.»oooo:n z».3

.EoomOoo ooo» .ooz0n
zozoo»xo oo o>.oooo
zznozn »ooz:»n oz»
»oo oo .oz»oz3 .>__oo

-...»oan ..zoz no oo..
-.»ooz. »ooz:»n >co»ooe

 

 

. -Eoo00co .0 n»oz cw» .—
oo.n.uoz n.oooz».o z».3 EooaOoo .ooo.»oo:zo ooomooo oo.»ooazo oo.omoo o -o.o oo oo. oo.»ooozo max»
oo.oooz .ooO. z.ozoz x ._00zon oz» zooo>o. oo o>oz zzsozn »ooz:»n oz» o. »oo5ooo_o >ozuom_ oz» o.zzao o»o.ooooono ooo. _
oo_n.uoo oxm oz no> o0.n.ooo 0:4 :0 ».no. »oooo. o0 ».no oozom oann .oz
. . zo.oono< . . a _ _ oo.ooo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

zo..ooE. z»»ooz on.3ooz»c o0 >__oo.n>zo

amm-

186

 

.o0_n_ooz n.cou_..0

.o»o..oOoooo

n. .ooz0n oz» >z zozooE
-EOooo no Eoooooo »oo.
-oao oz» o. oo.»oao.»oou

..ooo oz» .0. .00zom
oom_z0.z oz» »o Eoouooo

.ozo.»
-o00 z_30zn no0.>.on »coo
-oan omooaoo_ zoo zoooom
.o0_»oo:zo .ozooom o. »ooon
.oz »ooz». uz» .o no. z».3
EoomOoo zo..ooE. oo.»ooz

.z._zu zo..ooo_
oo.oooz z.0-ooo>-a_ o

 

 

.oz»ooz_noo oz» no: »ooE o o. »ooEooo_o »oonooo oz» .0. »ooeouo_o .oo0_»oo »xw
oo.zooz .o»o. z.ozoa x ..ooz0n oz» zozooo. -ooo—o o»o.oo0oooo »noe oz» ooo—»oOu z.oOzn »ooz:»n oz» -azo .0 nnooo»o.oo0ooo< _
o0_n oo 02 no» :0 n oo :0 » no »oooo o0 » no u oann .oz
. . o oxm zo»oooo< _ . z czz _ . o a . _ a »ooz m _ oo.oooz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

zoo—one. oo.ooo:

com»

187

 

.n»_3no.

oo.»o:_o>o loo

.0 »o_ooo. .0 n>oz
z» z.z».3 .....z
-.o..o o0 o0.n.ooz
o .ozoo. 0» .oo...0
oo.oooz .o»o»

.>»_._z_n__u

oo ozoe oz 0» o0.n_ooz
o .0. .oo...0 mo..ooz
.ooO. oz» 0» »oon oz 0»
n».:no. oz» z».3 .ozoe
no: oo.»o:_o>o .oz».:.
.0. oo.»ozooEEOoo. <
.mo_.ooz oz» »o zo»oon
-o.o oo.»oe.o.o_ o0.»
uo:_o>o .o zoo. 0» oaz
.ozoE oz ooo »ooe..ooe_
.0 oo.»oo.e.o»oz oz

.».o»o_.

-oo.noo nzo50n oozzoe zoo
oaooo» oz» .0 on: .ooo.o
oo.o.o_o. 0» »oo.oz» zoooon
o>.ooo. zoo zo..onE. oaoom

.noo_>.on omoaooo_ zoo

.o.onoe

oaaoo» oz» »o.»ooo

0» »n.oo_o>z .o»ooz

o 80.. n.oo> ~\_-~ .0.
»oo.oz» zo>.ooo. zoz

 

 

 

.oo.n_ooz n..oo_..o -oo. zoo zoooon no zo...» zoooon .o. o.z.m__o no >.. oz: »ooz:»n z.o-.oo> ox~
mo..ooz .ouo. z.ozo: x .oo.n-0oz »oozoooozo. nooz. oz z.oozn »ooz:»n oz» -.oao »0o nooz »ooz:»n oz» .» o .0 oo.»oo...»ooz. _
oozn.ooo con 02 no» oo.n.ooz oz» oo.».no. »oo.o. oo.».no. .ooz0n oann_ .oz
zo.oooo< _uo..oo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

zo..ooo. oooauoo» zoo zoooom

cum.

188

.oo.»0on o>_»o..oo o. zoz:.oo_o

 

.n_.o»oz

.oz».:. .0. o>.»
-o..oo oom .oo.n
-.ooz »oozoooozo_

.>».__z_.

sooono. n..oo...0 uo..ooz
o .0 o.oo. oz» o.z».z

»0o n. .oozon 0..—o

-oon o o. »oo5ooo_a zoos

nzooo. o» .o.o. Eo.u0.n.

..xn oz» z. zo_._uoan
no no0.>.on zoo noo.uo.o

.0. o.z.o._o o.o.o.oz»
zoo .xm n. »ooz:»n oz»

. .ooz0n oz» zo.o>o.

.osoz oo.. oooo»n.z
o.zoo0noo. o o.z».I zo»ouo»
.oozon o o. n.ooo o>.».oooo

n.z z».3 ooo.nno_o .xm

oo o. zooo.o oz z.oozn »ooz
-:»n oz» ..o>o- o>.».om00
n.»ooz:»n oz» »oo& »oo no0z

oo.oo.o .xm zozooEEOoo. oz»

.Eo.m0.o .zo.

»oo..:o oz» ooz» .oz»o.
.n»ooza»n .xm .0. eo.uo.o o
o. n. »ooz:»n n.z» .0. »oo:
-ooo_o.o»o..oo.ooo »noe oz»

..ooz0n o...ooon

o o.z».z »oo5ooo_o no:
oann. »< .»ooza»n .xm
zo.._»ooz. z.0-.oo>-o o
.0. »ooEooo_o .ooo_»oo
-azo .0 nnooo»o..ao.oo<

z_\m

 

.zo__z

oz» .0. .oozun zonzzuzz
oz» »o n. »ooEooo_o
o»o..oo.ono »no: oz»

..ooz0n oz» zo.oso.

.ooo_zo_: o. »n_xo »oo nooz
>_zozo.o zo.zz ..oo> .oo
n»oz mom .zoo: .oo n>oz »
.»oz .oo n.zoz za zoz.>
-o.o Eo.o0.o o o. n. »ooe
-ooo_o o»o..o0.aoo >—o0 oz»

.n»ooz:»n zo__z\.ooz

.xm .o. Eo.oo.a o no»o
-.ooo zo.zx .zo._n oz» .0.
.oozun zonzzuzz oz» »a »zue
-ooo_o o >z »oe nzooo n.z
o>oz »noz ooo »ooz:»n oz»

.zz__z ...auo.
zoo .ooz >_zo:o.o.o
0n.o n. oz: ..xm no

zo_._»ooz. »ooz:»n z.0
-.oo>-m_ o .0. oo.»ooazo
o._z:o o»o..oo.ooo oo..
zoo »ooeouo_o .oo0_»oo
-ozo .0 nnooo»o..o0.oo<

m.\m

 

o0.n_ooa ozm

 

 

02 no»
zo_oooo<

 

o0.n_ooa czz

 

o0_»_n0. »oo.oo

 

c0_»_n0. .ooz0n

 

.oz
«o..oox

 

 

zo..ooe. >—o.»—=z >_o.o>om

can.

189

iNa££311¥a_99mm§nls::12§Q
A tota1 of nine hearings he1d during 1980 are inc1uded in the
f011owing narrative. In two of the cases the 1oca1 hearing officerks
decision was not appea1ed. These cases are inc1uded in the narrative
comments section because they contain more re1evant information than
can be presented in co1umnar form. In the remaining seven cases the
1oca1 hearing officer's decision was appea1ed and somehow a1tered by

the state hearing officer.

W

This case invo1ved a 1S-year-o1d student whose program at the
time of hearing inc1uded 50% of the sch001 day in a c1assroom for
emotiona11y impaired and 50% in genera1 education c1asses. The parent
requested an Educationa1 P1anning and P1acement Committee meeting and
stated in the request a desire to have the student p1aced in a residen-
tia1 treatment center in Massachusetts.

The recommendation of the EPPC was for three hours dai1y in a
c1assroom for the emotiona11y impaired. and three hours in genera1
education c1 asses. Sch001 soci a1 work services were a1 so recommended.
The parents requested a hearing.

The 1oca1 hearing officer ru1ed that the program as recommended
by the EPPC was appropriate. The parents then requested a state-1eve1
review. stating that the sch001 district shou1d provide an educationa1
program in a residentia1 setting. or if that cou1d not be provided.
arrange for p1acement in a private faci1ity and assist the parents in

the costs for such a program.

190

The state hearing officer rendered an independent decision and
ru1ed that the p1acement recommended by the sch001 cou1d at best be
on1y an interim arrangement. 'The sch001 district was directed to
fo11ow up previous contacts made with Community Menta1 Hea1th.
Department of Socia1 Services. and the Probate Court. and refer the
student for an in-patient diagnostic admission to a State Regiona1
Diagnostic Center or a hospita1 designated as a statewide faci1ity as

defined by the Michigan Department of Menta1 Hea1th.

EmotionaJJmeaJLeLflZ

There were five issues re1ating to a free appropriate pub1ic
education for a seven-year-o1d chi1d identified as autistic. for whom
this hearing was he1d. They were as fo11ows:

1. Short and 1ong term goa1s are not specific in that they
cannot be used as an accurate measurement of the progress of the
program.

2. No progress reports made avaiTab1e to parents on a regu1ar
basis.

3. Lack of a summer program to be provided beyond the minimum
180 day sch001 year as received in past.

4. Lack of description of appropriate transportation.

5. No appropriate occupationaT therapy provided.

The issue of appropriate transportation was reso1ved before the
hearing. The 1oca1 hearing officer rendered the fo11owing decision on
the remaining four issues:

1. The 1atest IEP is defective because it does not provide
comp1ete goa15 and objectives in a11 areas of concern for this chi1d.
The IEP goa1s and objectives are to be supp1emented and/or superseded

by the goa1s and objectives found in the psycho1ogica1 eva1uation.

191

2. The sch001 was ordered to use its best efforts to deve1op
and maintain an open 1ine of communication with the parents. even
though progress reports had been made avai1ab1e to the parents on a
regu1ar basis. The parents were a1so asked to cooperate with the
sch001 to faci1itate and promote their teachings in the home.

3. There is no need to extend the program beyond 180 days.
based on the individua1 needs of this chi1d. This part of the decision
was modifiab1e at any time it was shown that the factors set forth in
the Armstrong v. K1ine case were met.

4. Occupationa1 therapy is to be increased from 45 to 60
minutes per week. with no 1955 than 10 minutes of individua1ized
instruction during each session.

The parents appea1ed these decisions and requested a state-
1eve1 review. The 1etter of appea1 did not identify any specific issue
of appea1. so the state hearing officer addressed a11 four issues
inc1uded in the 1oca1 hearing. The state hearing officer uphe1d the
1oca1 hearing decision on the issues of goa1s and objectives and
extended sch001 year. On the issue of progress reporting. the state
hearing officer ru1ed that the method and frequency of student progress
reporting to parents is an issue for individua1 sch001 districts to
determine.

The decision of the 1oca1 hearing officer re1ative to
occupationa1 therapy was modified by the state hearing officen. Rather

than a minimum of 10 minutes of individua1ized instruction each week.

192

the state hearing officer ru1ed that the student shou1d receive 30 to

40 minutes of individua1ized instruction each week.

William

The sch001 district recommended that the student be p1aced in a
1earning disabi1ities c1assroom in one e1ementary sch001 for ha1f days.
and continue his regu1ar c1ass p1acement in another e1ementary sch001
for the other ha1f day. The parents did not want their chi1d to attend
any sch001 other than his home sch001 and fe1t that the specia1
education program shou1d be provided in the home schoo1.

When the parents were asked to present their case during the
actua1 hearing. they asked for and received a short recess. Upon
return. neither parent had any objection to the program as recommended
by the schoo1. The hearing officer then drafted a permission s1ip for
the parents to sign. a11owing the suggested program to begin imme-
diate1y.

Even though during the hearing the parents agreed to the
program recommended by the schoo1.*which meant the student wou1d attend
a different bui1ding for the specia1 education portion of his program.
the 1oca1 hearing officer sti11 ru1ed that the p1acement as recommended

by the sch001 district was appropriate.

Ming—913M

The issue in this case was whether or not an identified
1earning disab1ed student cou1d be appropriate1y educated in a fu11-

time 1earning disabi1ities program without occupationa1 and physica1

193

therapy. The 1oca1 hearing officer ru1ed that occupationa1 therapy
wou1d be a dup1ication of curricu1ar activities within the 1earning
disabi1ities program. and that in this specific case physica1 therapy
was a medica1 service that had no bearing on the educationa1 needs of
the chi1d. The parents appea1ed the 10ca1 hearing officer's decision.
The state hearing officer ru1ed that the student did not meet
the criteria for e1igibi1ity as a 1earning disab1ed student. but was
e1igib1e for specia1 education as a physica11y or otherwise hea1th
impaired student due to cerebra1 pa1sy. E1igibi1ity was not an issue
in this hearing. The state hearing officer a1so ru1ed that fu11-time
p1acement in a 1earning disabi1ities program was appropriate. In
addition. the state hearing officer ru1ed that both occupationa1 and
physica1 therapy were to be provided a minimum of 30 minutes per week.
It was a1so determined by the state hearing officer that a teacher
consu1tant with approva1 to work with the physica11y or otherwise
hea1th impaired was to be assigned to coordinate and monitor the provi-

sion of occupationa1 and physica1 therapy.

W

In this case the issues were identification. eva1uation. and
the re1ated services of physica1 and occupationa1 therapy. The sch001
district recommended that the student continue to be identified as
1earning disab1ed and physica11y or otherwise hea1th impaired. It was
a1 so recommended that specific physica1 therapy programming be

deve1oped. based on recommendations of a particu1ar physician. One and

194

a ha1f hours per week with a teacher consu1tant for LD/EI was a1so
recommended. as was one hour per week with the occupationa1 therapist.

The parents requested a hearing. based on their be1ief that the
student shou1d a1so be identified as emotiona11y impaired. that specia1
transportation shou1d be stated as a need on the IEP. and that an
eva1uation by a teacher consu1tant for physica11y or otherwise hea1th
impaired was needed.

The 1oca1 hearing officer ru1ed the f011owing:

1. The student is appropriate1y designated as LD and POHI.

2. The student does not meet the necessary criteria for
designation as E1.

3. Teacher consu1tant services for one and a ha1f hours per
week are appropriate.

4. Transportation. OT. and PT must be provided.

5. An IEP must be deve1oped.

6. An eva1uation by a teacher consu1tant for POHI is not
necessary.

The parents appea1ed this decision. stating their disagreement
as fo11ows:

1. The student shou1d a1so be designated as EI and be entit1ed
to services for an E1 individua1.

2. The student requires specia1ized transportation due to
pickup at the door. an aide. and restraints. and such matters shou1d be

documented in the IEP.

195

3. The student shou1d be provided a teacher consu1tant for
POHI.

The state hearing officer supported the 1oca1 hearing officeru;
decision that the student was not e1igib1e for determination as an
emotiona11y impaired student. However. the state hearing officer a1so
ru1ed that the student was not e1igib1e as a 1earning disab1ed student.
but did remain e1igib1e for specia1 education programs and services as
a physica11y or otherwise hea1th impaired student.

It was a1so determined by the state hearing officer that
transportation must be provided. but it must a1so be documented on the
IEP to insure a free appropriate pub1ic education. The state hearing
officer a1so ru1ed that the sch001 district must provide a teacher
consu1tant with approva1 in the area of the physica11y or otherwise
hea1th impaired to coordinate and monitor physica1 and occupationa1

therapy services.

W

The student in this case was 17 years of age. identified as
EMI. and being served in a high sch001 resource room with support from
a speech and 1anguage patho1ogist. The sch001 district determined that
the student wou1d be more appropriate1y identified as TMI and shou1d
receive his education in a TMI program. The parents fe1t the student
shou1d continue to be identified as EMI and be p1aced in a 1oca1
district program for prevocationa1 and vocationa1 specia1 education

training.

196

It was determined by the 1oca1 hearing officer that the student
was TMI and shou1d be p1aced ha1f days in a she1tered workshop setting.
Ha1f-day c1assroom instruction was to be provided in the areas of
consumer ski11s. persona1 hea1th. and socia1 and prevocationa1 ski11s.

The parents appea1ed this decision on three separate issues.
These issues wi11 be presented separate1y. fo11owed by the state hear-
ing officer's decision.

Issue_£1: The student is EMI. not TMI.

The state hearing officer ru1ed that the student was e1igib1e
for specia1 education programming as an EMI student. thereby reversing
the 1oca1 hearing officer's decision on e1igibi1ity.

1§§ne_£2: The student shou1d be p1aced in a prevocationa1/
vocationa1 specia1 education program in a specific sch001 district. and
not be p1aced in a she1tered workshop.

The state hearing officer ru1ed that vocationa1 needs wou1d
most appropriate1y be met in a she1tered workshop setting for five ha1f
days a week. Prevocationa1 needs wou1d most appropriate1y be met in a
specia1 education program for EMI students. with support from a teacher
consu1tant for the 1earning disab1ed five ha1f days per week.

Issue_£1: The parents objected to the 10ca1 hearing officer
using a work eva1uation report in reaching his decision.

The state hearing officer supported the 10ca1 hearing

officer's use of the work eva1uation report in reaching his decision.

197

.Ina1nable_Montall¥_1mna1£ed_£5

This case invoTved re1igious and cu1tura1 convictions for a 17-
year-o1d TMI student; A Michigan Menta1 Hea1th Regiona1 Center. an
authorized chi1d p1acement agency. p1aced the student in a group home
in New York State to meet her re1igious and cu1tura1 needs. The
Michigan sch001 district took the position that this p1acement was not
for educationa1 purposes. and the Michigan Constitution prohibited
paying pub1ic funds to a nonpub1ic schoo1.

The parents took the position that the Menta1 Hea1th Regiona1
Center had determined there were no faci1ities in Michigan to meet the
student's re1igious and cu1tura1 needs as required by recipients'
rights issued by the Michigan Department of Menta1 Hea1th. and
therefore proper1y p1aced her in a group home in New York State.
A1though there were Michigan group homes for adu1ts that wou1d meet the
re1igious and cu1tura1 needs of this student. there was no p1acement
for chi1dren in Michigan that met the requirements of Chapter 14.
Section 20. Paragraph VII E of the Administrative ManuaT of the
Michigan Department of Menta1 Hea1th. which states that "Recipients
sha11 be permitted the observation of dietary practices in keeping with
the re1igious requirements of the recipients' faith group."

A1though the Michigan Menta1 Hea1th Regiona1 Center was paying
for the p1acement in New York State and providing socia1 work service.
the parents requested that the Michigan sch001 district provide for the
student's education. The 1oca1 hearing officer determined that without

any expense to the parents. the student must be provided a free

198

appropriate pub1ic education at a sch001 she can be transported to from
a home which meets her re1igious and cu1tura1 needs. A11 parties
invo1ved were encouraged to confer with each other and appropriate
officia1s at the Michigan Department of Menta1 Hea1th to find such a
so1ution. The hearing officer continued the hearing to January 26.
1981. or as soon thereafter as was mutua11y agreeab1e to a11 parties
invo1ved and the Michigan Director of the Department of Menta1 Hea1th.
Attorneys for both parties advised the hearing officer that
they were invo1ved in negotiations with representatives of the Michigan
Department of Menta1 Hea1th regarding its responsibiTities under the
joint agreement between the Michigan Department of Education and the
Michigan Department of Menta1 Hea1th. On May 6. 1981. the attorney for
the parents advised the hearing officer in writing that the Michigan
Department of Menta1 Hea1th had assumed financia1 responsibiTity for
the educationa1 costs of this student. and therefore wished to withdraw

their request for a hearing.

W

A previous hearing was a1so he1d for this student on January11.
1978 (see SMI #2 for 1978). As a resu1t of the 1978 hearing. which
was not appea1ed. the 1oca1 hearing officer supported the parents and
ru1ed that the student was e1igib1e for specia1 education programs and
services as a POHI student. and shou1d be p1aced in a POHI program with
chi1dren of his own age. It was recommended that this p1acement be for

at 1east one year.

199

In May 1979. a new Educationa1 P1anning and P1acement Committee
met to discuss the POHI p1acement. After 1engthy discussion between
the parents and educators concerning p1acement. an extension of the
POHI program was agreed upon unti1 more current eva1uations cou1d be
obtained. In December 1979. another EPPC was he1d. The student was
identified as SXI. P1acement in a program for SXI was proposed. but
the parents disagreed because they fe1t the program wou1d not be
appropriate for the student's cognitive 1eve1. A hearing was requested
by the parents.

The 1oca1 hearing officer ru1ed that the student was SXI and
therefore e1igib1e for programming under the program ru1e for
identified SXI students. It was a1so stated by the 1oca1 hearing
officer that it was not within his rea1m of authority to recommend a
specific schoo1. The parents disagreed with this decision and
requested a state-1eve1 hearing. based on their be1ief that in order
for their chi1d to achieve his maximum potentia1 he shou1d be p1aced in
a c1assroom for SXI. but with peers of 1ike cognitive 1eve15. and in a
sch001 1ocated within a reasonab1e distance from home.

It was ru1ed by the state hearing officer that the student was
a physica11y or otherwise hea1th impaired chi1d. and he directed the
sch001 district to provide specia1 education services as out1ined in
the program ru1e for POHI students. as found in the Michigan Specia1
Education Code. In addition. the sch001 district was directed to
provide an aide to the c1assroom teacher and therapists to give support

in meeting persona1 and instructiona1 needs.

200

WWW
At the time of this hearing the student was 11 months of age

and being programmed for in an ear1y intervention infant/parent program
that did not operate during the summer months. The parents requested
that the program be continued over the summer. The sch001 district
denied the request but offered to put the chde in a center program for
SMI students and provide physica1 therapy. The parents then requested
a hearing and asked the 1oca1 hearing officer to ru1e on the fo11owing
five issues:

1. Whether or not the student shou1d be p1aced in an SMI
program.

2. Whether or not the student shou1d have an extended sch001
year.

3. What was the appropriate e1igibi1ity category?

4. Whether goa1s and objectives for physica1 therapy shou1d be
written or not.

5. What is an appropriate program for this chi1d?

The parents contended that the ear1y intervention program the
chi1d was in was appropriate and shou1d be provided over the summer
a1so. In addition. they fe1t the chi1d shou1d receive direct services
from a physica1 therapist. occupationa1 therapist. teacher of the
speech and 1anguage impaired. teacher consu1tant for the visua11y
impaired. and teacher consu1tant for physica11y or otherwise hea1th

impaired. Sch001 district personne1 fe1t that appropriate programming

201

cou1d be provided in a center program for SMI students. with the
addition of physica1 therapy.

In the parents' introductory statement during the actua1
hearing. 20 issues were introduced which were not disc1osed to sch001
district personne1 before the hearing. The TocaT hearing officer
stated that it wou1d have been more appropriate to revea1 a11 of the
issues to sch001 district personne1 before the hearing. but that a11
issues re1ated to identification. eva1uation. p1acement. and
programming wou1d be ru1ed on.

The 10ca1 hearing officer rendered a 10-point ruTing based on a
decision that the student was SXI and shou1d receive a program from a
teacher qua1ified to teach SXI students. This program shou1d a1so be
provided for six weeks during the summer. A1though the parents agreed
with the major portion of the 1oca1 hearing officer's decision. five
issues were appea1ed. These issues wi11 be stated separate1y. foTTowed
by the state hearing officer's decision.

Issug_£1: The chi1d shou1d be eva1uated by consu1tants for the
visua11y impaired and physica11y or otherwise hea1th impaired.

The state hearing officer agreed with the Toca1 hearing officer
and ru1ed that such eva1uations were not necessary. .

,Lssue_£z: 'The parents shou1d be reimbursed for independent
eva1uations by a psycho1ogist and speech and 1anguage patho1ogist.

The state hearing officer agreed with the 10ca1 hearing officer

and ru1ed that the independent eva1uations did not significant1y add to

202

diagnostic information a1ready avai1ab1e. Costs for the independent
eva1uations were not the responsibi1ity of the sch001 district.

.l§§u§_£3= Who was responsibTe for the cost of food used in
instruction?

The 10ca1 hearing officer ru1ed that when food was used for
instruction rather than sustenance. the sch001 was responsibTe. When
food was used for both instruction and sustenance. the parents were
responsibTe for the cost. The state hearing officer rUTed that the
cost for a11 food was the responsibiTity of the parents.

‘Issne_£4: Is p1acement in an infant/parent program approp-
riate?

The 10ca1 hearing officer ru1ed that it was not necessary to
provide an infant/parent program in order to appropriate1y meet the
needs of this chi1d. The state hearing officer ru1ed that the current
infant/parent program was the program that meets the current educa-
tiona1 needs of this chi1d.

Is§n§_£5: The parents asked the state hearing officer to ru1e
on the appropriateness of the EPPC form used by the sch001 district.

The state hearing officer determined that this was not a

hearabTe issue and cou1d best be hand1ed through the comp1aint process.

W

A breakdown of the major issues around which hearings were he1d
during 1980 is shown in Tab1e 13. It shou1d again be noted that the
tota1 number of issues is far greater than the tota1 number of hearings

he1d. This is due to the fact that any one hearing may be centered on

203

any one of the four major issues. a11 of the issues. or any combination

thereof.

Tab1e 13.--Breakdown of issues and hearings by disabiTity and hearing
number--1980.

 

Issue Hearings InvoTved TotaTS

 

Identification E1 ’4: ’5: ’7: '11: ’13; L0 ’1: ’49 ’50

#6. I7; EMI #1. IS; TMI I3; SMI i1. #2; 16 (41%)
S/L #1
Eva1uation E1 #1; LD #6; SMI #2 3 ( 8%)
P1acement E1 ‘2: ’3: ’49 '6: ’79 '99 ‘10: #119 ’13;
L0 ’2: ’59 ’7: '89 ’9; EMI ’1: ’29 ’39
#4. I5; TMI I2. #3. I5; SMI I2; HI I1; 26 (67%)
SXI I1. #2
FAPE E1 #8. I12; LD #3. I5. #6. I8; EMI I5; 13 (33%)

TMI I1. I4. #5; SMI #2; SXI I1; POHI #1

 

Throughout 1980. p1acement continued to be the primary issue
invoTved in hearings. with 26 of the 39 hearings (67%) inc1uding a
p1acement dispute. The identification-of—students issue increased from
the previous three years. with 16 of the 39 hearings (41%) invoTving a
dispute over identification.

Free-appropriate-pubTic-education issues remained in dispute
Tess than either p1acement or identification issues. but were inc1uded
in 13 of the 39 hearings (33%). Eva1uation issues p1ayed a sma11 r01e
in hearings during 1980 a150. with on1y 3 of the 39 (8%) invoTving an

eva1uation dispute.

204

Tab1e 14 i11ustrates parent representation at the 39 1oca1
hearings he1d in 1980. In 1980. parents represented themse1ves in 38%
of the Toca1 hearings. Advocates represented parents in a third of the
hearings. and attorneys were chosen by parents to represent them in 10
of the 39 hearings. or 26% of the cases. In on1y one case were the

parents not represented at the hearing.

Tab1e 14.--Parent representation at hearings--1980.

 

 

Parent Representation Number of Hearings
Attorney 10 (26%)
Advocate 13 (33%)

Se1f 15 (38%)
Not represented 1 ( 3%)
Tota15 39 (100%)

 

Tab1e 15 i11ustrates sch001 district representation at the 39
1oca1 hearings her in 1980. In 1980. directors of specia1 education
represented sch001 districts in over ha1f’(51%) of the 10ca1 hearings
he1d. Attorneys represented schoo1 districts in a1most one-third
(31%) of the cases. whiTe the superintendent represented the district
in on1y two hearings. or 5% of the cases. Three of the five other
representatives were directors of personne1. The remaining two repre-
sentatives were a coordinator of p1anning. monitoring. and data coTTec-

tion at an intermediate sch001 district and a high sch001 principa1.

205

Tab1e 15.--Schoo1 district representation at hearings-~1980.

 

 

Sch001 District Representation Number of Hearings
Attorney 12 (31%)
Superintendent 2 ( 5%)
Director of specia1 education 20 (51%)
Other 5 (13%)
Tota1$ 39 (100%)

 

Tab1e 16 i11ustrates hearing decisions at both the 10ca1 and
state 1eve1$ during 1980. As can be seen. 10ca1 hearing officer
decisions supported the sch001 district position 69% of the time in
1980. Loca1 hearing decisions supported the parent/student in on1y 13%
of the hearings. In four of the hearings (10%). the TocaT hearing
officer incorporated parts of both positions. In three hearings (8%).
the 10ca1 hearing officer rendered a tota11y independent decision.

Of the 39 1oca1 hearings he1d in 1980. 19 (49%) were appea1ed.
In 15 of these appea1ed cases (79%). the Toca1 hearing officer had
supported the schoo1. Of these 15 cases. the state hearing officer
supported the sch001 district in 11 of the 15 appea15. or 73% of the
time. In on1y one case (7%) did the state hearing officer reverse the
Toca1 hearing officer's decision and favor the parent. In one case
(7%) the state hearing officer incorporated parts of both positions.
In the remaining two appea15 (13%) the state hearing officer rendered
an independent decision. There were no appea1s in any of the five

hearings in which the 10ca1 hearing decision favored the parent.

206

 

 

 

 

.oz—V m AN.» V z Awm. _ A»... .. .»mz. m. .»ooz. mm ..o»o»
o0 n.oo
zoom. _ zoom . _ ... ... AN... N A». z m zzuezwzwzzq
... ... ... noo.».noo »0
ANOO—v N ANOmV N AwO—V ... UWHMLOQLMUCAH
... ... ... ... ... ANN—V m HCQLWQ UQHLOQQDW
Ayn-v N A». V _ ANN. _ Awm.v __ zoom. m. Awmz. »N »oozon zoo.ooozn
oo_n_ooo z»0z »oo.oo .00zom zo.oooo<
»oozoooozo. zo»o.oo.ooo_ zo.o>o. zo.o>o. .oz832 zo.ozoox
_o>oz o»o»m _o>oz .oooz oo_n_ooo

 

 

.ozm.--nzo_m_umu

mo_.oo:uu.z_ o.zo»

207

Two of the four (50%) hearings in which the Toca1 hearing
officer incorporated e1ements of both positions were appea1ed. In both
cases the state hearing officer aTSo incorporated parts of both
positions. accepting the Toca1 hearing officer's decision.

‘Two of the three (67%) 10ca1 hearings in which an independent
decision was rendered were appea1ed. In one case (50%) the state
hearing officer incorporated parts of both positions. In the other
case an independent decision was a1so rendered by the state hearing
officer. which uphe1d the 10ca1 hearing officer's decision.

1211:1280

As i11ustrated in Tab1e 17. p1acement was the main issue in a11
four years of this study. When the hearing process began in 1977.

13 of 15 hearings (87%) inc1uded a p1acement issue. A1though the
percentage of hearings invoTving p1acement decreased in 1978 (68%). the
percentage continued to remain high in each of the two remaining years.

Eva1uation was the issue of Teast concern in a11 four years.
with a range of 3% (1978) to 8% (1979 and 1980) of the hearings
inc1uding an eva1uation issue. With the exception of 1978 (14%).
identification issues were found in at 1east a third of the hearings
each year. Free appropriate pub1ic education issues were consistent
for three of the four years. with a range of 27% (1977) to 33% (1980).
In 1978 there was an unexp1ainab1e high percentage (59%) of hearings

invo1ving a FAPE issue.

208

 

Ammo..ooz o:_v

Ammo..ooz mm.

Anmo_.ooz NmV

Ammo_.ooz an.

Ammo..ooz m_V

 

 

NoN mm M. mz MN m.m»o»
.»mMV mm ANMMV M. AN_MV z. AwmmV o» AN»~V z m.<.
.»sz em ANNzV zN .NMzV zM .»sz MN Anan M. »coeoum.z
.oz V m A». V M A». V z .NM V . AN. V . zo.»ms.m>m
.».MV z. .».zV z. .NmMV m. .NM.. m .NMMV m zo.»mo...»zou_
n_o»o» owm. m»m_ mum. .»m. nonnn_

 

.omm.-M»m. "was... .o ..mEEsM--... a......»

209

WWW

Tab1es T8 and 19 iTTustrate the positions he1d by those persons
representing parents and sch001 districts at the 140 10ca1-1eve1
hearings he1d in Michigan between October 1. 1977. and December 31.
1980.

Tab1e 18 shows that in 1977. parents were representing them-
se1ves 40% of the time. Parents continued to represent themse1ves a
high percentage of the time (35%) in 1978. but for some unknown reason.
in 1979 parents represented themse1ves in on1y 19% of the hearings.
whi1e they were represented by an advocate 48% of the time and by an
attorney 25% of the time. In 1980 parents were again being represented
by themse1ves more than anyone e1se.

The use of advocates as parent representatives in 1oca1
hearings is c1ear1y i11ustrated in Tab1e 18. From 1977 on through
1980. advocates were representing parents in an average of 37% of the
10ca1 hearings being he1d. In 1979 a1most one out of every two hear-
ings (48%) had an advocate as a parent representative.

The use of attorneys as parent representatives remained rather
stabTe over the four years inc1uded in this study. with a 1ow of 21% in
1978 to a high of 27% in 1977. Over the four-year period. parents were
represented by attorneys in 34 of the 140 hearings. or 24% of the time.

Parents were not represented at a11 in 6 (4%) of the 140
hearings. In on1y one year (1978) were there any hearings in which the
hearing officer did not report who represented the parents. and that

occurred in 5 of the 35 hearings he1d that year. or 14% of the time.

210

 

 

 

 

.Noo.V oz. .Noo.V MM .Noo.V NM .Noo.V zM .Noo.V M. nnz..moz .o .3.52
.N: V M ... ... .NM.V m ... zzozxzz
AN: V o Awm V _ Aww V z Awm V _ ... zo»oono.oo. »oz
.N.MV M. .NmMV m. .Nm.V o. .NMMV N. .Non n ..on
ANNMV Nm ANMMV m. .Nsz mN .NzNV m AwmmV m o»ooo>z<
.NzNV zM .NzNV o. .NmNV M. .N.NV N .NNNV z .oz.o»»<
omm.-NNm. com. mNm. mNm. NNm. zo.»m»zono.zuz
..ozo. .oz..muz .o .ozssz »zo.m.

 

 

.owm_-~.m_ .nmo..ooz _o>o_-_ooo_ »o oo.»ouoono.oo. »oo.omua.m_ o.zo»

211

The fact that directors of specia1 education represented sch001
districts in 1oca1 hearings more than any other group in the four years
of this study is cTear1y shown in Tab1e 19. The Tast two years in this
study ref1ect a marked increase in the percentage of hearings in which
sch001 districts were represented by directors of specia1 education.
Sch001 districts a150 re1ied heavi1y on attorneys for representation at
1oca1 hearings. with an average of 27% of a11 hearings he1d in the four
years invoTving an attorney as the sch001 district representative.

In each of the four years there were a few "other" persons who
represented sch001 districts. such as director of e1ementary education.
director of personne1. program supervisor. or simiTar such titTes.
Beginning in 1979 the percentage of "other" representatives had
decreased.

In 1977 through 1979 there were a few hearings in which the
sch001 district representative was not stated in the hearing officer
report. This poor reporting improved. with on1y two hearing officer
reports (4%) not inc1uding this information in 1979. and none in 1980.

As ref1ected in Tab1e 20. the 10ca1 hearing officer supported
the sch001 district position over 50% of the time in each year
inc1uded in this study. In three of the four years. the sch001
district position was uphe1d over 65% of the time. In 1980. 10ca1
hearing officers ru1ed in favor of the sch001 district in a1most seven
of every ten hearings (69%). Except for 1978. the percentage of
decisions in favor of the sch001 district has been extremeTy

consistent.

212

 

 

 

 

.NmmV oz. .Noo.V mM .Noo.V Nm .Noo.V zM .NmmV m. mm5.8.. .o .oze=z
.NN V o. ... .N: V N .Nm.V z .NM.V N zzozxzz
.NN.V zN .NM.V m .NM.V m .NzNV m .NM.V N .mz»o
ANNzV mm AN.mV ON .szV MN ANNMV .. .»MMV m .zo .o.ooan .0 .o»oo..o
.N. V m .NM V N .N» V N .Nm V M .NM.V N »zuzzozz..ozsn
ANNNV mm Aw_mV N. ANmmV ». Awm_V m AwmuV : >oo.o»»<
o»m.-..m. ozm. MNM. a... NNM. zo..ozzo......
n_o»o» nmo..oo= .o .ozE:z »0..»n.z .00zom

 

 

.owm_-».m_ unmozoooz _o>o_u_ooo_ »o oo.»o»oono.oo. »0..»n.z .00zomu-.m_ o.zo»

213

 

 

 

 

NMM NM» N.M NMM NMM Noo. Noo. Noo. Noo. Noe. N
NM M. NM N. M oz. MM NM NM M. z m.m»o»
NM. NMM NMM .. .. N. NM Nz .. .. N zo...uoa
¢~ N N o o o o W m M o o o o z “cmtchUUC—
NMM NOM NOM Noo. .. No. No. NM. NM NM. N .zo....oz z.oz
m N m m .. z. z m m N z zo»o.oo.ooo.
NoM .. N.. NMM .. NNN NM. NM. NMM NON N .z».oz
M .. N M .. oM M M M. M 2 zo».oaasn
NMM NMM NMM NzM NOM N.M NM. NMM NMM NMM N .oozum
MM M. MN o. M oM MN MM M. o. z no».ozzsn
n.o»o» omm. MMm_ NMM. NMM. n.o»o» 0mm. mnm. NMM. MMm_ zo.ozoo¢
zo_oooo< .ozsaz oo.n.ooo

 

_o>o» .oUOz

 

.owm.-MMm_

.n.ooooo zoo noo.n_ooz mo..ooz _o>o_u_ooo_ .0 >.oEE:muu.0N o.zo»

211i

 

NMN NM N.. NOM N... NNM NMM NM. NMM No. NMM NM. N.. NMM NMM £28
a. _ m m N m: __ - N m :m m. um w_ m
.. o .. o. o. .. .u .. o. .o .u N N o. .. Ucovcoantc.
Nmu . .. wa .. Nm.N_ .. .. NMM .. .. .. .. .. .. ace-u—ma 9305
N . . . N . . — . . . . — . . Q N m M . . vquLOQLOuc.
who . NmN NOO— .. NMM .. Nmfi .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ucvuma
W . — m .o M .o M o. o. m .. on m .. V0UL8QDM
NM. NM NM. NON no: was umn wa woo new .. .. .. .. .. .oozuu
M . : N N MM .. M. . M MM M. MN o. M co..oaa=.
«.mu0h own. mum. mum. m~m_ m-MNOP oom— mnm. mum. mum. m_mu0h cam. mmm_ wum— num—

 

Ncouma to.o>mu

 

.00cum voMO>mu

 

uo_monn< Manes:

co_m_uoo .muo.

 

.cmm_-~mm_ .m3m_>u. mc_.mu; _u>u_-o.mum .o >.mEE:mu-..~ 0.9m»

2155

 

 

N. N.. NM .. .. N.. N.N NM. N.. .. NMM NM. N.. NMM NMM ....o.
. M M .. .. N a N N .. .M M. NM M. M
NMM NOM Noe. .. .. NMN NoM .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. co.M.uuo
M — N .. .. — — .. .. .. Q~ N N .o .. “COUCUQUUPI
NM.N. .. NMM .. .. NOM Noo. NM. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .co....oa ..o.
_ .. _ .. .. a N N .. .. m N m m .. uuNmMOQLOuc_
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. NeuLQQ
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. m .. a m .. tOuLOQQJm
N. NM. .. .. .. NM NM .. NoN .. .. .. .. .. .. .oo.n.
N N .. .. .. M . .. N .. MM M. MN o. M ua..oaa=.
..auoN oMM. MMM. MMM. MMM. ..ouoN omM. MMM. NMM. MMM. ..nqu oMM. MMM. NMM. MMM.

 

co_m_uoo acovcoaovc_

 

mco_u_mom swam voumgoagouc_

 

oo.ooaa< Lassa:

co.m.uoo .ouo.

 

..o:c..=ou--..N o..o»

216

Except for 1978. when iocai hearing officers supported parent
positions in 38% of the hearings. the parents were upheid in only 20%
of the hearings or 1ess. Beginning in 1979. the parent position has
been supported 1ess each year.

Loca1 hearing officers incorporated parts of both the parent
and sch001 positions a sma11 percentage of time in each yean. No
nonpartisan decisions were rendered by a iocai hearing officer unti1
1979. and for both 1979 and 1980. the percentage was 1ess than 10%.

Since 1977. the number of appeais when the iocai hearing
officer ru1ed in favor of the sch001 has increased substantiaiiy over
the 1977 percentage (50%). In both 1977 and 1980. none of the iocai
hearing decisions in support of the parents was appea1ed. A1though
none of the Tocai decisions incorporating both positions was appea1ed
in 1977. at 1east 50% were appea1ed in each of the next three years.
In both 1977 and 1978. none of the independent locai hearing decisions
was appeaied; however. 67% of the independent decisions were appea1ed
in both 1979 and 1980.

Of those iocai hearings in which the decision favored the
sch001 but was appea1ed. the state hearing officer aiso ru1ed in favor
of the schooi district at 1east 60% of the time in a11 four years. In
1979 the state hearing officer aiso favored the sch001 in 83% of the
appeais. and in 1980 the sch001 district position was uphe1d in 73% of
the cases. State hearing decisions favoring the parent. when the iocai
decision supported the sch001 district. have decreased each year since

1977.

217

In on1y one year. when the Ioca1 hearing decision supported the
parents. was there any state-1eve1 decision that favored the sch001.
and in that year (1979). the percentage was high (75%). In two of the
four years when the Iocai decision supported the parents. there were
a150 state-1eve1'decisions favoring the parents. In 1978 the parent
position was uphe1d by state hearing officers in each of the five cases
appea1ed. In 1979 on1y 25% of the appea15 resu1ted in a decision
favoring the parents.

Except for 1978. when state hearing decisions favored the
parent position in 50% of the state hearing reviews. state hearing
officers have ru1ed in favor of sch001 districts at least 58% of the
time. In the 1ast two years of this study the percentage of parent
support on appeais dropped to 16% (1979) and 5% (1980).

W
W

The se1ection and training of persons serving as specia1
education due process hearing officers has been left up to the
discretion of each State Department of Education. When PL 94-142
became effective on October 1. 1977. thereby mandating due process
hearings. hearing officers began their involvement with no known train-
ing or experience in the specia1 education hearing process. In Michi-
gan. therefore. both pubiic schooi districts and the State Department
of Education had to appoint hearing officers without known training.

Tab1e 22 iIIustrates the number of hearing officers within a

given occupation who served for each of the four years inc1uded in this

218

 

 

 

ANOOMme MNoo_VNm MNOOVVzm ANoo_Vm_ MNoo_Vm_ ANoo_Vm_ MNoo_VNN MNoo_VN_ m_mu0h
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .0m_>coo:m ommu
Awm NV. ANm V _ H.30u o__co>:w
.. .. .. \ .. .o.oo._o
ANm v N ANW V N ANm v — ANO v UmCm—U Lo LOHCQU
ANmoNv— oo oo o. ANm V — o- oo oo “emu—amcou and
.. .. .. .. .. .. .ma..c..a
MNm V N AN__V N cOVNmuaoo .o.ooom
.N. V M .. .NM V . .. .N..V N .. .NM V .. Luca... ......
.NM.V . MN. V N ANONV M .NM V MN..V M .NM.V ANN.V MN. V MmcLouu<
.. ANN V : ANmVV m MNm_V .. ANN V ANN—V ANN—V Ncovcouc_cmo:m
.0uou._o
.N.NV c. .NMNV M. .NN.V . .NONV .N.NV N .No.V .N..V ANOMV co..mu=ea .m.uoa.
Lammomoco
.N.MV .. .NM.V MM .N..V M. .N..V .N.NV M .N... .NNMV .NMNV M.....>.c=
omm. mmm. mum. Mum. owm. mum. mum. mum. coVumaauuo

 

oouoaocoU mm:_.mo: Mo .onE:z

 

mcou.mmo mcmcmoz mo consaz

couVmwo mc_.mo:

 

.omm_anmm_ .o0uoaucoo

mmc_.mo; .0 Logan: ocm .mcoo.mwo mc_.moc Mo consac .chVNmoaouo cou_mmo mc_cmo:ua.NN o.omh

219

study. a1ong with the percentage of the tota1 number of hearing offi-
cers for each year. A1so shown in Tab1e 22 is the number and percent-
age of hearings conducted each year by hearing officers within each
occupationa1 category.

As shown in Tab1e 22. there were 12 different hearing officers
invo1ved in the 1S 1oca1 hearings he1d in 1977. 0n1y one hearing
officer he1d mu1tip1e hearings in 1977. serving a tota1 of four
hearings. The remaining 11 hearings each used a different hearing
officer.

Tab1e 22 a1so i11ustrates that for 1977. in 80% of the 1oca1
hearings either a university professor or director of specia1 education
served as the hearing officer. In 13% of the cases a superintendent
was the hearing officer. An attorney presided as a hearing officer in
on1y one case (7%).

In 1978. 22 peop1e served as hearing officers for the 34 1oca1
hearings he1d. Eighteen of these 22 hearing officers (82%) he1d on1y
one hearing. During this same year one person he1d two hearings. one
person he1d three hearings. one person he1d four hearings. and one
individua1 heid a tota1 of seven hearings.

During 1978 university professors continued to preside as
hearing officers for a 1arge percentage of hearings (44%). By
contrast. other professiona1s served in a much sma11er percentage of
hearings: directors of specia1 education (12%). superintendents (15%).

and attorneys (20%).

220

The occupation of those persons serving as hearing officers in
1979 changed very 1itt1e from the preceding two years. In 1979 the
percentage of hearings being he1d by university professors (63%) and
directors of specia1 education (25%) both increased from the preceding
year. The percentage of hearings he1d by attorneys (4%) and superin-
tendents (8%) both decreased from 1978. In 1979. 88% of the hearings
he1d were presided over by either a university professor or a director
of specia1 education.

In 1980 there were a tota1 of 19 hearing officers invo1ved in
the 39 hearings he1d. A1though there were a few new occupations
represented by hearing officers in 1980. the majority of hearings
continued to be he1d by university professors (36%). directors of
specia1 education (26%). and attorneys (15%). For the first time in
the four years covered in this study. there were no superintendents
serving as hearing officers.

In Apri1 1978 the State Department of Education. Specia1
Education Services Area. sponsored an institute to provide hearing
officer training for department personne1 and for persons nominated by
statewide professionai and consumer organizations. This training.
provided by the Deve1opmenta1 Disabi1ities Law Project of the
University of Mary1and Sch001 of Law. resu1ted in a cadre of state-
trained persons avai1ab1e to serve as specia1 education due process
hearing officers. A iist was made avai1abie to 1oca1 and intermediate
sch001 districts to be used in the se1ection of hearing officers. This

training institute aiso provided the Department with trained hearing

22]

officers to function as state-1eve1 hearing review officers. It shou1d
be noted that this 1ist was provided simp1y as a resource and that
sch001 districts were under no oingation to choose a hearing officer
from this cadre of trained persons.

In Apri1 1979 another hearing officer training institute was
he1d. using the same se1ection process as the previous year. As a
resu1t of this training. an updated 1ist of hearing officers was
compi1ed and distributed. This 1ist contained the names of those
persons who were ab1e to successfu11y comp1ete a competency-based
hearing officer training course provided by the Deve1opmenta1 Disabi1i-
ties Law Project of the University of Mary1and Sch001 of Law.

The State Department of Education continued to provide updating
and training for hearing officers. and in January 1980 he1d a 1ega1
seminar with personne1 from the Comp1iance Unit of the Specia1
Education Services Area and representatives from the office of the
Attorney Genera1 and se1ected private attorneys. The purpose of this
seminar was to c1arify a number of 1ega1 and procedurai issues
pertaining to due process hearings. As a resu1t. a document in
question-and-answer format was compi1ed and made avai1ab1e as a
resource to 10ca1 hearing officers.

In March 1980 a two-day institute was offered by the State
Department for those persons who were known to have conducted 1oca1
hearings since October 1977. to provide pertinent updated information
re1ative to prob1ems and procedures which hearing officers might

encounter. Presentations reiated to hearab1e issues. authority of

222

hearing officers. hearing procedures. and prob1ems. This institute
resu1ted in another resource document avai1ab1e to hearing officers.

A two-day workshop was he1d in May 1980 for those persons
previous1y trained. but who had not as yet served as a hearing officer.
The emphasis of this workshop was to reacquaint these persons with
hearing procedures and update them on state and federa1 1aws. ru1es.
and regu1ations.

Tab1e 23 i11ustrates the number and percentage of 1oca1 hearing
officers who had received state training and the number of hearings

they conducted in 1979.

Tab1e 23.--Number of 1oca1 hearing officers. number of individua1
hearings he1d. and number of 1oca1 hearings he1d by trained
hearing officers--1979.

 

 

Tota1 State Trained?
No. of No. of Individua1 Hearings

Hearing Officers Hearings He1d He1d Yes % No %
8 1 8 3 38% 5 62%
1 2 2 .. .. 2 100%
1 3 3 3 100% .. ..
1 4 4 .. .. 4 100%
1 5 5 .. ..o 5 100%
1 7 7 7 100% .. ..
1 1O 1O 10 100% .. ..
1 13 13 13 100% .. ..
15 45 52 36 69% 16 31%

 

223

A1though there were more hearings he1d in 1979 (52) than any of
the four years reported on in this study. on1y 15 hearing officers were
invo1ved in those 52 hearings. Eight of the 15 peop1e (53%) he1d on1y
one hearing. For the first time since the inception of the hearing
process. a number of peop1e he1d mu1tip1e hearings. and most hearings
were he1d by peop1e who had comp1eted the hearing officer training
institutes.

Tab1e 23 i11ustrates that. for the first time. in 1979 there
were a very sma11 number of hearing officers presiding over most of
the hearings. For examp1e. by sp1itting Tab1e 23 in ha1f and combining
on1y the 1ast four numbers in each of the first two co1umns. it can be
seen that on1y four peop1e presided over 35 (67%) of a11 the 1oca1
hearings he1d in Michigan during 1979. By 1979 a cadre of hearing
officers were being ca11ed upon to ho1d the majority of due process
hearings in the state. Not on1y had the point been reached where a
very sma11 number of hearing officers were ho1ding a 1arge majority of
the hearings. but a high percentage of hearings were being he1d by
peop1e who had received hearing officer training.

In 1980 there were a tota1 of 19 hearing officers invo1ved in
the 39 hearings he1d. The percentage of hearing officers conducting
on1y one hearing dropped even 1ower than in 1979. to 47%. Tab1e 24
i11ustrates the continuing trend for a sma11 number of peop1e to pre-
side over the 1arge majority of hearings being he1d. Looking at the
1ast four figures in each of the first two coiumns. it can be seen that

on1y 10 hearing officers conducted 30 (77%) of the hearings he1d in

224

1980. On1y five hearing officers conducted 20 of the 39 hearings. or
51%.

Tab1e 24.--Number of 1oca1 hearing officers. number of individua1
hearings he1d. and number of 1oca1 hearings he1d by trained
hearing officers--1980.

 

 

Tota1 State Trained?
No. of No. of Individua1 Hearings

Hearing Officers Hearings He1d He1d Yes % No %
9 1 9 S 56% 4 44%
5 2 1O 6 60% 4 40%
3 3 9 6 67% 3 33%

1 4 4 4 100% .. ..

1 7 7 7 100% .. ..
19 17 . 39 28 72% 11 28%

 

By 1980. the 1arge majority of hearings were being conducted by
trained hearing officers. In 28 of the 39 hearings (72%). the presid-
ing hearing officer had received training by the State Department of
Education.

The Administrative Ru1es for the imp1ementation of Michigan's
Mandatory Specia1 Education Law were modified during August 1980.
Before this time. hearings cou1d on1y be requested by a parent. and the
se1ection of a hearing officer was 1eft to the discretion of the schoo1
district invo1ved. As of August 13. 1980. Ru1e 340.1724a states that

"The superintendent of the pub1ic agency sha11 designate an impar—
tia1 hearing officer mutua11y agreeab1e to both parties. If the
parent and the pub1ic agency cannot agree on a hearing officer. the

superintendent sha11 request that the Department appoint an impar-
tia1 hearing officerJ'

225

This modified ru1e required two new things. First. it required
that both parties agree on the hearing officer and second. if the
parties cannot reach agreement. the Department of Education is
responsib1e for appointing an impartia1 hearing officer. As a resu1t.
on August 27. 1980. the State Director of Specia1 Education sent a
Inemorandum to a11 intermediate and 1oca1 directors of specia1 education
out1ining the procedures for the se1ection of hearing officers under
the new ru1es. A copy of this memorandum is contained in Appendix D.

The memorandum states that before the Department se1ects a
1oca1 hearing officer. a 1etter must be drafted by the educationa1
agency and signed by both parties. stating that they have exhausted a11
attempts to se1ect a mutua11y agreeab1e hearing officer. and therefore
request the Michigan Department of Education to appoint one. The
Department then makes a se1ection of three names. in b1ind 1ottery
fashion. from a poo1 of names maintained by the Department. The se1ec-
tion of names is made without regard to the fee stipu1ated by the
hearing officer or geographic 1ocation or distance factors invoived.
The Department then confirms the avai1abi1ity of the person whose name
was drawn first. for on or about the expected hearing date. If the
first person se1ected is unavai1ab1e. the second name drawn is con-

tacted and. if necessary. the third person whose name was drawn.

W
W

A review of the 140 1oca1-1eve1 hearing reports he1d between

October 1. 1977. and December 31. 1980. revea1s a c1ear and positive

226

change in the content and format of 1oca1 hearing officer reports over
time. It is understandab1e that when the hearing process first began.
hearing officer reports varied tremendous1y in both their format and
content. In some cases it appeared there actua11y was no format. and
it was sometimes particu1ar1y difficu1t to tru1y understand the
issueis) in dispute. Many of these reports contain on1y a brief
summary of the dispute. 1itt1e background information. if any. and the
hearing officer's decision. Very few reports contain such information
as rationa1e for the decision. findings of fact. or conc1usions of 1aw.

Beginning in 1979. the 1oca1 hearing officer reports took on a
new and improved format. By the end of 1980. most reports were being
c1ear1y prepared in 1ogica1 sections. such as background. issues of
contention. findings of fact. conc1usions of 1aw. and rationa1e for
decision. By this time. hearing officer reports had not on1y taken on
a much different appearance but were stating the issues at hand and
other pertinent information in a much more concise and organized
manner.

The fact that there were ear1y difficu1ties re1ative to 1oca1
hearing reports is substantiated by a December 19. 1979. memorandum
from the State Director of Specia1 Education to a11 intermediate and
1oca1 directors of specia1 education. which contained six suggestions
and a rationa1e for each suggestion as to how 1oca1 hearing officers
cou1d improve their procedures re1ative to the hearing process. A copy

of this memorandum can be found in Appendix D.

227

The fact that in sometcases important informationa1 items were
missing from 1oca1 hearing officer reports was further substantiated in
a September 29. 1980. memorandum from the Supervisor of the Comp1iance.
Approva1. and Monitoring Program of the Specia1 Education Services Area
to a11 practicing hearing officers and persons who had comp1eted the
Department of Education hearing officer training workshops. 'This
memorandum (contained in Appendix E) suggested a format for hearing
officer reports that inc1uded the fo11owing seven different types of
information:

1. Background information

2. Statement of the issues

3. Hearing officer decision

4. Summary statements

5. Findings of fact

6. Conc1usions of 1aw

7. Fo11ow-up responsibi1ities of hearing officers

It appears very c1ear that the training institutes and efforts
made by the Department of Education. Specia1 Education Services Area.
have had a very positive effect on both the content and format of 1oca1

hearing officer reports.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter contains (1) a summary of major findings based on
a review of the 140 1oca1 hearings and 74 state hearing reviews.

(2) discussion. and (3) recommendations for further research.

WM:

1. Sixty-nine percent of the cases reviewed inc1uded issues
re1ating to p1acement. 38% inc1uded issues re1ating to a free approp-
riate pub1ic education. and 31% inc1uded issues re1ating to identifica-
tion. Eva1uation issues were inc1uded in on1y 6% of the hearings
reviewed.

2. Parents were represented by an advocate in 37% of the
hearings. by themse1ves in 31% of the hearings. and by an attorney in
24% of the hearings.

3. Sch001 districts were represented by the Director of Specia1
Education in 42% of the hearings and by an attorney in 27% of the
hearings.

4. Loca1-1eve1 hearing decisions supported the sch001 position
in 64% of the hearings.

S. Loca1-1eve1 hearing decisions supported the parent position

in 22% of the hearings.

228

229

6. Fifty-nine percent of the 1oca1 hearing decisions support-
ing the sch001 position were appea1ed.

7. Thirty percent of the 1oca1 hearing decisions supporting
the parent position were appea1ed.

8. When a 1oca1 hearing officer supported parts of both the
parent and sch001 district positions. the majority of those decisions
(57%) were appea1ed for a state-1eve1 review.

9. When a 1oca1 hearing officer rendered an independent
decision (one that did not favor either the parent or schoo1 district
position). the decision was appea1ed two-thirds of the time.

10. Seventy-four percent of the appea1ed 1oca1 decisions sup-
porting the schoo1 position were found in support of the sch001 by the
state hearing officer.

11. Seventeen percent of the appea1ed 1oca1 decisions support-
ing the schoo1 position were found in support of the parent by the
state hearing officer.

12. Sixty-seven percent of the appea1ed 1oca1 decisions sup-
porting the parent position were found in support of the parent by the
state hearing officer.

13. Thirty-three percent of the appea1ed 1oca1 decisions sup-
porting the parent position were found in support of the schoo1 dis-
trict by the state hearing officer.

14. ‘Twenty-one of the hearing officers (31%) were university
professors. who conducted 68 (49%)) of the hearings. Twenty (29%) of

the hearing officers were specia1 education directors. and they

23D

conducted 33 (24%) of the hearings. Ten hearing officers (15%) were
attorneys. and they conducted 16 (11%) of the 140 hearings.

15. In 1979 69% of the hearings were conducted by trained
hearing officers. In 1980 72% of the hearings were conducted by

trained hearing officers.

Discussion
The fo11owing discussion is divided into two parts. First.

each of the 15 major findings is discussed individua11y. This is
fo110wed by further discussion that is not direct1y re1ated to the
major findings of this study but is deemed appropriate to the issue of

specia1 education due process hearings.

DiscussiQnJLMaJoLflndings
findingfl. P1acement was an issue inc1uded in 196 of the 140

hearings (69%) he1d during the four years inc1uded in this study. and

was the issue most 1ike1y to be inc1uded in a hearing request. In

1977 13 of the 15 hearings (87%) inc1uded a p1acement issue. In 1978

the percentage of hearings invo1ving a p1acement issue decreased to

68% and then remained quite constant during 1979 (65%) and 1980 (67%).
The issue 1east 1ike1y to be found in a hearing during the four

years in this study was eva1uation. On1y nine of the 140 hearings (6%)

invo1ved an eva1uation issue. In 1977 on1y one hearing (7%) invo1ved

the issue of eva1uation. Again in 1978 on1y one hearing (3%) contained

a dispute regarding eva1uation. During both 1979 and 1980. 8% of the

hearings inc1uded eva1uation issues.

231

Issues invo1ving a free appropriate pub1ic education (FAPE)
were found in 38% of the hearings. For three of the years inc1uded in
this study. the percentage of hearings invo1ving a FAPE issue was
rather consistent (1977--27%. 1979--31%. and 1980--33%). During 1978.
a FAPE issue was found in 20 of the 34 hearings he1d (59%).

Identification issues were found in 44 of the 140 hearings
(31%). In 1977 (33%) and 1979 (35%) the percentages of hearings
invo1ving an identification issue were quite c1ose. In 1978 on1y 5 of
the 34 hearings (15%) inc1uded an issue re1ating to identification. In
1980 16 of the 39 hearings (41%) invo1ved an identification issue.

.Eindlng_£2. Parents were represented in more hearings (37%) by
an advocate than anyone e1se during the four years inc1uded in this
study. In both 1977 and 1980 the percentage of hearings in which an
advocate represented parents was 33%. In 1978 the percentage dropped
to 26%. and in 1979 the percentage increased to 48%. An attorney
represented parents in 24% of the hearings. and the percentage was
rather constant over the four-year period (1977--27%. 1978--21%. 1979.-
25%. and 1980--26%). If the totais for advocate and attorney represen-
tation of parents are combined for the four-year period. parents were
represented by either an advocate or an attorney in 61% of the hear-
ings.

Parents represented themse1ves in 43 of the 140 hearings (31%).
In 1977 parents represented themse1ves 40% of the time. In 1978 this
dropped to 35%. and in 1979 parents represented themse1ves in on1y 19%

of the hearings. During 1980 parents represented themse1ves in 15 of

232

the 39 hearings (38%). Parents were not represented at a11 in on1y 6
of the 140 hearings (4%).

£1nfi139_£3. Sch001 districts were represented at hearings by a
director of specia1 education more than anyone e1se. In 1977 a
director was the sch001 district representative in 33% of the hearings.
The year 1978 was quite constant. with a director being the representa-
tive in 32% of the cases. In 1979 a director was the sch001 district
representative in 44% of the hearings. and in 1980 this percentage rose
to 51%.

An attorney represented the sch001 district in 38 of the 140
hearings (27%). In 1977 sch001 districts were represented by an
attorney in 27% of the hearings. In 1978 this percentage dropped to
15%. During 1979. attorney representation of sch001 districts
increased to 33% and remained quite stab1e during 1980 at 31%.

A1though superintendents represented schoo1 districts in 13% of the
hearings he1d in 1977. this dropped to 9% in 1978. 4% in 1979. and 5%
in 1980.

‘Einding_£1. In each of the four years inc1uded in this study.
the 1oca1 hearing officer decisions supported the schoo1 district
position the majority of the time. In 1977 the sch001 district posi-
tion was supported by the 1oca1 hearing officer in 67% of the hearings.
In 1978 this percentage dropped to 53%. In 1979 67% of the 1oca1
decisions supported the sch001 district position. and in 1980 this

increased to 69%.

233

£1nd1ng_£5. The position of the parent was supported by 1oca1
hearing officers in on1y 22% of the hearings. In 1977 the parent
position was supported at the 1oca1 hearing 20% of the time. In 1978
this increased to 38%. During the next two years the percentage of
1oca1 hearings in which the parent position was supported dropped
substantia11y. to 17% in 1979 and 13% in 1980.

E1nd1ng_£§. Of the 90 1oca1-1eve1 decisions in which the
schoo1 district position was supported. 53 (59%) were appeaied. In
1977 50% of the 1oca1 decisions favoring the schoo1 district position
were appea1ed. In 1978 this percentage increased to 56%. and in 1979
the percentage appea1ed was 66%. In 1980 the percentage of appea1s on
1oca1 decisions favoring the sch001 district dropped again to 56%.

E1nd1ng_£l. Of the 30 1oca1 hearing decisions in favor of the
parent. nine (30%) were appea1ed. In 1977 (three decisions supported
the parents) and 1980 (five decisions supported the parents) there were
no appeais to 1oca1 decisions in favor of the parents. In 1978 five
out of 13 (38%) of the 1oca1 decisions supporting the parents were
appea1ed. and in 1979 four out of nine (44%) of the 1oca1 decisions in
favor of the parents were appea1ed for a state-1eve1 review. Based on
data obtained in this study. 1oca1 hearing decisions that favor the
sch001 district are a1most twice as 1ike1y to be appea1ed (59%) as are
those 1oca1-1eve1 decisions in favor of parents (30%).

E1ndjng_£§. In three of the four years inc1uded in this study
(1978. 1979. and 1980). 1oca1 hearing decisions supporting parts of

both the parent and sch001 district position were appea1ed. In each of

231.

these years the appea1 rate was 50% or more. In 1978 a11 three (100%)
of the 10ca1 decisions supporting both positions were appea1ed. In
1979 three out of five (60%) of such decisions were appea1ed. and in
1980 two out of four (50%) of the 1oca1 decisions supporting parts of
both the parent and sch001 district positions were appea1ed.

Elng1n9_12. In two of the four years inc1uded in this study
(1979 and 1980). 10ca1 hearing officers rendered decisions that did not
favor either the position of the parents or the sch001 district. In
both 1979 and 1980 there were three such decisions. and in both years
two of those decisions (67%) were appea1ed for a state-1eve1 review.

.E1nding_£1Q. Of the 53 1oca1-1eve1 decisions that favored the
sch001 district position and were appea1ed. 39 (74%) of the state-1eve1
decisions a1so favored the schoo1 district position. In both 1977
(three of five) and 1978 (six of ten). 60% of the state appea15 on
1oca1 decisions favoring the schoo1 district a1so were rendered in
favor of the schoo1 district. In 1979 this percentage increased to 83%
(19 of 23 appea1s). and in 1980 11 of the 15 appea1s (73%) were a1so
found in support of the schoo1 district position.

Ejndjng tll. Nine of 53 (17%) of the appea1ed 1oca1 decisions
favoring the sch001 district were found in favor of the parents. In
1977 two of the five (40%) appea1ed 1oca1 decisions favoring the schoo1
district were found in support of the parent by the state reviewing
officer. Over the next three years this percentage decreased each
year. In 1978 two out of ten (20%) of such appea1s were found in favor

of the parents. In 1979 on1y 4 out of 23 (17%) of the state hearing

235

decisions favored the parent when the 1oca1 hearing officer supported
the schoo1 district position. During 1980 on1y one out of 15 (7%) of
the state decisions favored the parent position when the 1oca1 hearing
officer ru1ed in support of the schoo1 district. Over the four-year
period covered in this study. the percentage of state-1eve1 hearing
decisions in favor of the parent when the 1oca1 decision favored the
sch001 district decreased 33%.

Elnding_£lz. A tota1 of nine 1oca1 hearing officer decisions
supporting the parent position were appea1ed for a state hearing
review. The state hearing review officer a1so ru1ed in favor of the
parent in six (67%) of those hearings. In 1978 five out of five (100%)
of the state-1eve1 decisions for hearings in which the 1oca1 hearing
officer ruTed in favor of the parent were a1so rendered in favor of the
parent position. During 1979 one out of four (25%) of the state deci-
sions for hearings in which the 1oca1 decision was in favor of the
parent a1so favored the parent position.

W. Of the nine 1oca1 hearing decisions that favored
the parents and were appea1ed. three (33%) were decided in support of
the schoo1 district position by the state hearing review officer. A11
three of these state decisions were rendered in 1979. out of a tota1 of
four hearings during that year in which the 1oca1 decision favored the
parent. but the decision was appea1ed.

E1ndlng_£14. Seventy-five percent of a11 hearing officers
conducting hearings between October 1. 1977. and December 31. 1980.

were either a university professor (31%). specia1 education director

236

(29%). or attorney (15%). Persons in these three occupations conducted
117 of the 140 hearings (84%). In both 1977 and 1979 every 1oca1
hearing officer was either a university professor. specia1 education
director. superintendent. or attorney. .A1though some hearings were
conducted by superintendents in 1977 (13%). 1978 (15%). and 1979 (8%).
during 1980 none of the 1oca1 hearings were conducted by a superin-
tendent.

‘Elnding_£15. A tota1 of 15 different hearing officers
conducted the 52 1oca1 hearings he1d in 1979. Seven of those 15
hearing officers (37%) were trained. and conducted 36 (69%) of the
hearings he1d. Eight of the 15 hearing officers (53%) were not
trained. and conducted 16 (31%) of the hearings. In 1980 a tota1 of 39
hearings were conducted by 19 different hearing officers. Twe1ve (63%)
of the hearing officers were trained. and conducted 28 (72%) of the
hearings. Seven hearing officers (37%) who conducted 1oca1 hearings in
1980 were not trained. and presided over 11 (28%) of the 1oca1 hearings

he1d.

W

The intention of the specia1 education hearing process is to
insure the integrity of the educationa1 system in the provision of
specia1 education programs and services to suspected or identified
handicapped students. as required by 1aw and regu1ations. As pointed
out in Chapters I and II of this study. before imp1ementation of 1aws
and regu1ations. the educationa1 system had been 1acking in integrity

when it came to educating those who were in some way disab1ed.

237

If due process hearings are to succeed in he1ping to maintain
integrity within the educationa1 system. those persons with ro1es in
the hearing process must know those ro1es and be fu11y prepared to p1ay
their part. Parents must thorough1y understand the hearing process and
know whether or not they are capab1e of presenting their case. If they
are not. they must have access to either a parent advocate or an
attorney with experience and expertise in specia1 education hearings.

Sch001 district personne1 must know their rO1es and be fu11y
prepared as we11. If the district does not have an appropriate
representative. he1p must be sought from an attorney. Witnesses for
both parties shou1d be fu11y prepared in the proceedings and the
expectations of them. This is particu1ar1y true for the student. if
he/she is expected to testify. Both 1oca1 and state hearing review
officers must be continuous1y updated and inserviced if the integrity
of the system is to be maintained. Specia1 education due process
hearings shou1d not be taken 1ight1y by any party invo1ved. Each
person has a r01e to p1ay. and that r01e must be p1ayed with under-
standing. know1edge. and a determination to strive for what is be1ieved
to be best for that individua1 student for whom the hearing is being
he1d.

A1though a determination of costs was not a part of this study.
a review of the 140 1oca1 hearing officer reports and 74 state hearing
reviews he1d between October 1. 1977. and December 31. 1980. made it
evident that the due process hearing procedure is a cost1y process.

Expenses to the schoo1 district inc1ude obtaining a hearing officer.

238

recording the hearing. transcribing and reproducing a record of the
hearing. staff time before and during the hearing. and possib1y the
hiring of a spokesperson to represent the district or a witness or

consu1tant to testify at the hearing.

The cost of a hearing to parents is difficu1t to obtain. but
such costs may inc1ude copying educationa1 records. hiring an attorney.
taking time off work. hiring chi1d-care services. or obtaining an
outside eva1uation if the hearing officer determines that the schoo1
district eva1uation is appropriate. The cost to 1aw-income parents may
be minima1 if free or 1aw-cost 1ega1 services are avai1ab1e. If such
services are not avai1ab1e. the possib1e costs invo1ved in a hearing
may be too high for even midd1e-income parents.

Hearings can a1so be very comp1ex. A1though the on1y hearab1e
issues are identification. eva1uation. p1acement. and free appropriate
pub1ic education. it appears that anyone with a 1itt1e expertise can
fit any issue imaginab1e into one of those four categories. This
requires that hearing officers not on1y know the 1aw as it pertains to
specia1 education. but a1so have a broad base of know1edge regarding
various handicapping conditions and their imp1ications within an
educationa1 setting.

The comp1exity of hearings a1so demands a high 1eve1 of
expertise from those persons who represent either the parents or the
schoo1 district. ‘The difference between winning or 1osing a hearing
may very we11 rest in the preparation and presentation of a case. and

the types of questions asked in both examination and cross-examination

239

of witnesses. In some of the cases reviewed. it appeared as though a
more thorough presentation of evidence and better preparation might
have a1tered the hearing officer's decision. No parents shou1d begin
their invo1vement in the hearing process without first consu1ting
either an agency providing advocacy services. or an attorney. The need
to be thorough1y prepared for a hearing cannot be underestimated.

In the process of reviewing the hearings inc1uded in this
study. it became evident that many peop1e invo1ved in specia1 education
due process hearings are genera1-education personne1. These educators
shou1d never have to become invo1ved in a specia1 education hearing
without first being provided some background in the hearing process and
a thorough overview of what is expected of them.

Based on information obtained in this study. parents shou1d not
pursue a hearing re1ative to p1acement within a particu1ar sch001
bui1ding or c1assroom. Neither shou1d parents pursue a hearing based
on a be1ief that their chi1d shou1d be p1aced in a private sch001 at
the expense of a pub1ic schoo1. Schoo1 district personne1 shou1d be
aware that p1acement is the issue most 1ike1y to be inc1uded in a
hearing and that the district of residence is responsib1e for providing
an appropriate pub1ic program. even if one does not exist in that
district.

The need for a schoo1 district invo1ved in a hearing to have a
director of specia1 education who is know1edgeab1e and experienced in
the area of due process hearings appears evident. Specia1 education

directors are more 1ike1y than anyone e1se to represent a sch001

240

district in a hearing and wou1d therefore be invo1ved in the tota1
preparation of the case as we11 as representing the district at the
actua1 hearing. The need for directors who are proper1y trained in the
hearing process is one that shou1d be foremost in the minds of those
responsib1e for graduate programs designed to prepare and recommend
future directors of specia1 education.

Institutions of higher 1earning that prepare personne1 to
function as specia1 education directors shou1d inc1ude as part of their
training program a review of the hearing process. inc1uding the
presentation of actua1 caSes and the resu1ting decisions rendered at
the 1oca1 and state 1eve1s. Each student shou1d be required to
participate in a simu1ated hearing. in which he/she wou1d prepare a
case and then represent either the schoo1 district or parent. Video
taping of each simu1ated hearing wou1d a110w for detai1ed critiquing
and discussion by both the instructor and other c1ass members. Each
student shou1d a1so be required to prepare and write a 1oca1 hearing
decision. based on a case provided by the instructor. This decision
shou1d be written in the format suggested by the State Department of
Education. Specia1 Education Services.

In the process of reviewing the 140 1oca1 hearings inc1uded in
this study. there were times when the writer had to hesitate and ask.
"Why did this disagreement even cu1minate in a hearing?" In a few
cases it is hard to be1ieve that the issue or issues in dispute cou1d
not have been reso1ved in a 1ess forma1. 1ess adversaria1. 1ess

expensive. and more positive forum. Sch001 districts and parents

241

shou1d both pursue every possib1e avenue for reso1ution of their
disputes before going to a hearing.

One approach to reducing the number of hearings is informa1
mediation. This approach invo1ves bringing in an unbiased third party.
who wou1d hear both positions and then attempt to informa11y seek
reso1ution through mediation. The mediation process wou1d in no way
a1ter the time1ines for hearings as specified by 1aw. The unbiased
third party cou1d either be the hearing officer who has been agreed to
by both parties or designated by the state department. or some other
person mutua11y agreed upon by both parties. Consideration shou1d be
given by the State Department of Education. Specia1 Education Services.
to changing Ru1e 340.1724 to require mediation before a hearing is
convened.

The possibi1ity of training a cadre of experienced persons
throughout the state to function as mediators before a hearing actua11y
occurs shou1d a1so be considered by the State Department of Education.
This writer be1ieves that the hearing officer training provided by the
state department has had a positive effect on the hearing process
throughout the state. A simiTar possibi1ity exists in the area of
trained mediators.

Perhaps the area most 1ike1y to positive1y inf1uence due
process procedures is staff deve10pment and training. Teachers.
support personne1. and administrators need to have their ski11s
upgraded periodica11y. Teachers and support personne1 need to deve1op

better expertise in how to teach ski11s in a systematic way and

2h2

document the efficacy of their efforts. Teaching techniques and pupi1-
assessment ski11s shou1d be upgraded on a regu1ar basis.

Administrators need to have the opportunity to refine their
1istening and communication ski11s. They need to 1earn how to effec-
tive1y 1isten to parenta1 concerns and communicate appropriate1y with
those parents of handicapped students who have concerns. Through
ongoing inservice training. administrators can 1earn how to better
provide 1eadership. support the deve10pment of teachers and programs.
and work cooperative1y with parents. a11 of which wou1d decrease the

1ike1ihood of being invo1ved in a hearing.

WWW

Six recommendations for further research are suggested:

1. Further research on specia1 education due process hearings
shou1d focus on the effect the hearing process has had on actua1
programs and services to students.

2. A 1ongitudina1 study of due process hearings in Michigan
shou1d be conducted to show any changes in the issues. resu1ts. or
process over an extended period of time.

3. Further research shou1d be conducted to determine who or
what agency monitors hearing decisions to insure that they are in fact
being carried out.

4. Further study of both 10ca1 and state hearing officer
decisions is warranted to determine consistency and comp1iance with

ru1es and regu1ations.

243

5. Further research shou1d be conducted to determine the basis
in 1aw cited for decisions rendered.

6. Further study shou1d be done to determine whether or not a
sma11 group of parents or schoo1 districts is invo1ved in a dispropor-
tionate number of hearings. and if so. why.

A.fina1 comment is warranted. A1though the due process hearing
procedure has a110wed parents an appropriate means of seeking reso1u-
tion to issues of dispute. it has a1so provided an opportunity for
sch001 district personne1 to appropriate1y meet the needs of students.
even when parents resist. Sch001 personne1 have an ob1igation to
initiate and pursue the hearing process in an attempt to provide

appropriate programming when other a1ternatives have fai1ed.

APPENDICES

2M

APPENDIX A

MODEL FOR REPORT OF THE LOCAL HEARING OFFICER

245

246

MODEL FOR
REPORT OF THE LOCAL HEARING OFFICER

Name of LEA ISO

1. Date of hearing ....... . ......... [:1] - m - CE]

Please enter the number of your response in the box on the right:

Use the number (I) if your response is: YES
(2) if your response is: NO

2. Has your hearing an issue of Identification?
3. Was your hearing an issue of Evaluation? . .....
4. Has your hearing an issue of Placement? .............

5. Was your hearing an issue of Free Appropriate Public Education? .

DECIDED

6. Was a pre-hearing conference held? ...............

7. Local hearing initiated by ...................
1 - parent
2 - schoo‘ district

8. Has the hearing "Open" or "closed"? . ...... . . . . . . . . [:l
1 - open
2 - closed

9. The school district was represented by . . . . . ........ [Z]
1 attorney
2 supeantendent

 

3 direcuor of special education
4 other (please specify)
10. The parent was represented by .................. [:]
‘ 1 - attorney
2 - advocate
3 - self
4 - not present or not represented

*************************

11. Number of days from request for hearing to written decision . [:I:I:]

12. Length of hearing in days ................... [:I:]
13. The handicap or suspected handicap of the student involved in
this hearing was ........................
1 - E1 5 - SMI 8 - VI
2 - LD 6 - SXI 9 - HI
3 - EMI 7 - POHI O - S/L
4 - TMI

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

247

The hearing also dealt with the issue of: (Please check all appropriate
issues).

1 - Aides [3 4 - PT 7 - School Psycholofist [3
2 - TC D 5 - TSLI E1 8 - Transportation D
3 - OT [3 6 - SSW D 9 - Homebound/Hospitalized 0

Related Issues:

10 extended school year

 

 

 

- D 19 - related/auxiliary services 0
11 - private placement :1 (specify)
12 - restitution of monies D
13 - compensatory programing D
14 - tutorial services :1 20 - medical services (specify) E1
15 - mental health services [3
16 - residentia1 placement [3
17 - specific training methods] E1 21 - other (specify) [3
techniques
18 - specific materials E1
The decision primarily ...................... [:]

l - supports parent/student's position
2 - supports school district position
3 - incorporates both positions

Sex of student .......................... E]
1 - male
2 - female

Age of student .......................... [Z]

O to 5 years

6 to 12 years
13 to 18 years
over 18 years

wat-o
Illl

Grade of student ......................... [:]

preschool

elementary

junior high/middle school
secondary

post secondary

mwaO-l
Dill.

Decision Rendered by Hearing Officer:

 

 

 

 

Hearing Officer Date

APPENDIX B

REPORT OF THE STATE HEARING OFFICER FORM

248

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

249

FEPORT OF THE STATE HEARING OFFICER

 

Date of State Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [:I:1-[:I:j-.[:[:]

State Hearing Officer 0 . . . . . . .
Number of days taken from time of appeal to written report . . . . . . .[:I:1:]
Number of days from receipt of transcript to written report . . . . . .[:I:I:]
The local level decision was appealed by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[:J

l - parent
2 - school district

The state hearing decision primarily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[:)

supported parent/student's position
supported school district position
incorporated both positions

UMP
l

Indicate the number of previous local and/or state level investigations
and/or hearings this petitioner has been involved with:

Local (ISO) investigations . . . . . . . . . . .

Local hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.- --[I1
State investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[:I:]
11:!

State hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'L—[~]

For Denovo Hearing:

Was there a Denovo hearing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[:j

1 - Yes
2 - No

If yes, the school district was represented by .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . [:]

l - attorney

2 - superintendent

3 - director of special education
4-oflwr

If yes, the parent was represented by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[:]

- attorney

- advocate
self

- not present

bunt-I
l

APPENDIX C

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM RELATIVE
TO THE SELECTION OF HEARING OFFICERS UNDER THE

NEW SPECIAL EDUCATION RULES

250

251

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION s..:~;.;rm

lensing, Michigan 48909 now»: one srocmm. an.
VI“ Put-lat

 

DI. GUHECINDO MUS

5mm
PHILLIP E. IUNKEL
Superintendent of “mIA’DUHOW

PW" WIMP” M E M 0 R A N D U M mwxnm.n.
man “no
sntvueum o. unomu
ANNETI'A mun
on. IDHUND F. VANDI'HI

August 27, 1980 ‘miunfinmm
mum
TO: Intermediate and Local Directors of Special Education

FROM: Murray 0. Batten, Director. Special Education Services

RE: Selection of Impartial Special Education Due Process Hearing
Officers under the NEH Special Education Rules.

As most are aware, the administrative rules for implementation
of P.A. 451 of 1976 (Michigan's Mandatory Special Education Law) were
recently modified (effective date: August 13, 1980). That repromulga-
tion process modified the method for insuring SELECTION OF UNBIASED
SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS HEARING OFFICERS. That rule (R 340.1724a)
reads as follows. The underlined section highlights the topic of this
memorandum.

R 340.1724a. Impartial hearing officer.

Ru1e 24a. (1) The superintendent of the public agengy shall
designate an impartial hearing officer mutually agreeable to
both parties. If the parent and the public agency cannot agree
on a hearingiofficerg_the superintendent shall request that the
DepSthent appoint an impartial hearing officer.

(2) A hearing shall not be conducted by any of the follow-
ing individuals:

(a) A person who is an employee of a public agency involved
in the education or care of the person.

(b) Any person with a personal or professional interest
which would conflict with the person's objectivity in the hearing.

(c) An employee or board member of the involved local school
district. of another local district within the same inter-
mediate school district, or of the intermediate school district
of which the involved local district is a part.

(3) A person who qualifies to conduct a hearing under sub-
rule (2) of this rule is not an employee of the agency solely
because the person is contracted to serve as the hearing officer.

252

(4) Each public agency shall keep a list of the persons

who serve as hearing officers. The list shall include a state-
ment of the qualifications of each of those persons.

(5) The hearing officer may render a decision in regard to

any of the matters described in R 340.1723a(1)(a) and (b).

The rule contemplates two situations: (1) The need to have both
parties agree on the hearing officer, and (2) the requirement that the
school district must request the Department of Education to appoint an
impartial hearing officer should the parties not be able to reach agree-
ment between themselves. Should mutual agreement be unattainable, the
following procedure will be followed.

Procedure: Michigan Department of Education Appointment of

Impartial Special Education Due Process Hearing
Officers under R 340.1724a.

I. School District Request

A. A letter is drafted by the educational agency (signed by both
parties) that:

1.

States the parties HAVE exhausted attempts to select a
mutually agreeable hearing officer and are therefore re-
questing appointment by the Michigan Department of
Education.

Lists the names considered and rejected.

Gives the date that the hearing, if proceeding normally,
would be scheduled to occur (not less than 15 nor more than
30 calendar days from receipt of hearing request -

R 1725b(3)).

Attaches the IEPC report/notice or evaluation which pre-
cipitated the hearing request, and

Attaches the request for the hearing if submitted in written
form.

States if either party is aware of individuals on the
Department of Education's list of persons who have com-
pleted hearing officer training as having a contractual
or personal relationship which would disqualify them from
the selection process.

II. Department of Education's List of Hearing Officers

A. The Department shall maintain a list of hearing officers that
meet the following minimum criteria. This list shall be updated
as necessary to augment the list or keep information current.

253

I. All criteria under R 340.1724a, Impartial hearing officer,
shall be observed.

2. Persons listed have completed a training sequence recog-
nized or developed by the Special Education Service Area.

3. All listed persons will have done 31 least three local
hearings since October, 1977.

4. All persons on the list shall have completed at least gag
hearing during the past twelve months.

 

5. At least yearly, take part in a Department-sponsored
inservice.

B. Each person meeting the above criteria (II-A) as of August 13,
1980, shall be assi ned a permanent identification number (i.e.,
LHO I. LHO 2, LHO 3). No attempt to rank those listed is im-
plied.

C. Persons meeting the criteria after August 13, 1980, will be
assigned a permanent identification number and added to the list
as sogn as the Department is notified of their qualifications

II-A .

D. The Department may waive the training sequence requirement for
otherwise qualified personnel at the time this procedure is
accepted for demonstrated emergency situations (e.g., all
selected local hearing officers from list are unavailable or
disqualified).

III. Selection ani Appointment

 

A. Pool of Eligible Names

1. Selection of names fOr appointment as hearing officer will
be made without regard to the fee which may be stipulated
by the hearing officer. Hearing officers, however, must
list their fee with the Department prior to inclusion on
the list. They must also communicate any updating of that
fee statement.

2. Selection will be made without regard to geographical loca-
tion or distance factors.

3. Otherwise eligible names (See II-A above) will be excluded
from the final eligible pool of names if:

(a) they were considered and rejected during the school
districts and parents earlier attempts to reach mutual
agreement;

251-:

(b) if the hearing officer had previously communicated
a temporary inability to serve on hearing cases;

(c) if pending interaction between the Department and the
potential selectee would make exclusion prudent;

(d) if either party makes it known that persons on the
Department of Education's list have contractual rela-
tionship or a personal relationship with either party.

8. Selection

1. The permanent identification number for each final eligible
name will be placed into a common pool. (See II-D above.)

2. In blind lottery fashion, three of these numbers will be
randomly selected.

3. The order in which they were selected - lst, 2nd, or 3rd -
will be designated.

4. The coordinator of compliance/designee will confirm the
availability of the lst choice on or around the expected
hearing date. In the case of lst choice unavailability,
2nd, then 3rd choice, will be confirmed.

C. Notice

I. The coordinator of compliance/designee will, where possible,
contact the respective parties by telephone to notify them
of the appointment.

2. A letter of appointment verification will be sent certified
by the Department.

3. A notice to the hearing officer will confirm the appoint-

ment and direct the appointed hearing officer to:

(a) supply two copies of the hearing decision to the
Department. The first copy shall contain all per-
sonal identifiers. The second copy shall have all
personal identifiers struck (completed and forwarded
by the hearing officer);

(b) supply a summary of the hearing; its issues. delibera-
tion and decision (completed and forwarded by the
hearing officer) to the Department;

(c) include the cost of completing (a) and (b) above as
part of his/her fee to the district.

255

IV. Nomination Prohibition

The Department may. under specific circumstances. withhold or remove
a hearing officer from the state listing.

A. Abeyance

1.

Hearing officers, against whom a formal charge has been
made, will be held on an abeyance listing until the

Specific allegation(s) has been dealt with by the Department.
The Coordinator of Compliance will immediately investigate
the charge(s).

Hearing officers who have not completed three local hearings,
one of which was within the past calendar year. but were
formally on the state list, will be held in abeyance until
such time as to satisfy this requirement.

Hearing officers may be placed on an abeyance list at their
request.

8. Name Deletion

1.

Hearing officers against whom allegations are made regard-
ing conduct or partiality. and subsequently fbund valid,
may be removed from the state list at the discretion of the
Department.

Hearing officers on the abeyance list, who have not com-
pleted state requirements after one year. may be removed
fron the state list at the discretion of the Department.

Hearing officers may request their names to be removed.

If you should have any questions or concerns regarding the above. ,
please contact Dr. John H. Braccio, Supervisor, Compliance, Approval
and Monitoring Program, Special Education Services.

MOB/db

APPENDIX D

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM RELATIVE

TO PROCEDURAL MATTERS FOR HEARING OFFICERS

256

257

STATE Of MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION mmémm

lensing. Michigan 48909 NORMAN o-rro vacuum. a.
Vice haunt!

 

on. auuecmoo nus
r ILLIP e IUNKEL 30mm

Superintendent of .‘IIAIA DUHOW

'uNk Instruction M E M 0 R A N O U M townsfvanm,m

tun: My...
amnesia Q. uwomu
ANNETTA mun
DI. EDMUND F. VANDI‘I'II

December 19 , 1979 Gov-wt
mm C. W
la-Oflklo

TO: Intermediate and Local Directors of Special Education
FROM: Murray 0. Batten, Director, Special Education Services

RE: Procedural Matters for Hearing Officers

During the past few months, it has come to the attention of Com-
pliance Unit personnel (through appeals of local level hearing decisions
for state review) that several procedures relative to the hearing pro-
cess need attention by those conducting the hearings. We ask that you
make this memo available to hearing officers that you employ who are
not on our State list of hearing officers. He will send this memo to
those persons on our hearing officer list.

Suggestion #1) It is strongly suggested that the appointed
hearing officer request and receive a state-
ment of the issues of contention from both
parties prior to the hearing, and that such
statements of issues be exchanged between
parties at least five (5) days prior to the
hearing date.

Rationale

It has become evident, through the written transcripts of hear-
ings sent to the state for review, that the issues of contention are
often not clarified prior to the beginning of the local level hearing.
This situation forces either side into taking a position or providing
argument without prior or adequate preparation. This has a tendency to
prolong the hearing and confuses both the procedure and progress of the
hearing. It should be noted, however, that if/when appropriate hearable
issues are introduced during the process of the hearing, they should not
be excluded.

Suggestion #2) It is strongly suggested that hearing officers,
at the conclusion of the hearing, not only inform
both parties as to when a written decision may be
ex ected, but also that either party has seven

7 days from time of recgipt of the written de-
ciSion to appeal it for state level review.

258

Rationale

The Federal Regulations for P.L. 94-142 have no stated time lines
for appeal for state review of the local hearing decision; however, the
Michigan Special Education Code, as amended January 14, 1977, provides
a seven-day time line for appeal from receipt of the written decision
of the local hearing. Petitioners may only be familiar with the federal
regulations and, as a result, requests for state review may be made at
later dates than those stipulated by the Michigan Code. This informa-
tion about Michigan time lines, given at the time of closure to the
hearing, would prevent considerable misunderstanding and misinterpre-
tation relative to this matter at the time an appeal to the state level
occurs.

Suggestion #3) It is strongly suggested that the local hearing
officer review carefully the issues of contention -
and their decisions relative to the issues, confin-
ing the hearing and their decisions to those issues
which are covered under the Michigan and Federal
rules relative to handicapped students.

Rationale

Evidence, through hearings sent for state level decision-making,
appears to indicate that a few hearing officers may be making decisions
and writing directives for general educators to implement for general
education enrolled children, i.e., when a child has been determined as
not eligible for special education services, full time or part time,
the hearing officer does not determine appr0priate regular education
services for such child nor direct general education to provide them.
The authority of the hearing officer rests upon the eligibility of the
child for appropriate special educational programs and services and/or
those services necessary to determine eligibility for such services
under either state and/or federal codes.

 

Suggestion #4) It is strongly suggested that hearing officers
become sufficiently familiar with both the
state and federal statutes and rules for the
education of the handicapped, as well as general
school laws. A thorough knowledge of these
statutes and rules should prevent the hearing
of issues and the making of decisions which are
outside the authority of the hearing officer.

 

Rationale

Hritten communication to this office indicates that knowledge
concerning state general education and Special education rules and regu-
lations remains hazy. The hearing officer does not have the authority
to order programs or provisions that are not statutorily authorized,
i.e., placement in "Special Education Resource Rooms.“

259

A hearing officer also does not have the legal authority (under
either state or federal statute or rule) to direct restitution of monies
or services relative to allegations of “damages suffered" to either
party. or to direct financial payments or the withholding of payments
to agents or agencies as a result of the hearing.

 

Suggestion #5) It is strongly recomended that hearing officers
focus on acquiring the necessary information rela-
tive to the identified needs of the child - and
from this information, make a definitive decision
(based upon this information) relative to the pro-
gramming, services, and placement in which the
child's needs can most appropriately be met.

Rationale

Evidence indicates that when local hearing officers direct both
parties back to the EPPC/IEP process without definite directives rela-
tive to programming/services for the child's identified needs. the EPPC/
IEP process breaks down for the same reasons that it did previously.

A directive from a hearing officer for "both parties to meet to resolve
the issue" puts the whole process back to START, and, in effect. indi-
cates that the hearing officer has not fulfilled his/her responsibility
to make a decision on the issue(s).

Suggestion #6) It is suggested that, depending upon the issue
and situation. a local hearing officer may wish
to retain jurisdiction of a case where a direc-
tive for service and decision may culminate in
continued disagreement between parties.

Rationale

When writing the final report of a hearing decision, the hearing
officer may wish to retain jurisdiction over a particular issue or item
of the case until resolution between parties is effected. For example,
the hearing officer may order re-evaluation for the child. After com-
pletion of the re-evaluation, if parties involved cannot come to agree-
ment relative to a decision, the test results and protocols may be sent
to the hearing officer for decision relative to the issue - thus pro-
viding a timely decision and avoiding the possibility of initiation of
the whole hearing process again. The hearing officer's decision would
then be binding unless appealed for state review. If agreement between
involved parties is reached without the need for hearing officer inter:
vention, information of results is forwarded to the hearing officer,
and notification of approval is sent from him/her to both parties and
the case is closed.

26C)

It should be noted that keeping jurisdiction of a case is not
required and should only be considered in those instances where the
directives of the local hearing officer are likely to result in an im-

passe on the issue - and the possibility of a repeat hearing request
situation is high.

It is hoped that these suggestions will prove helpful to you
in the implementation of your local hearings. If you should have
further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Jane Scandary,
of this office. at (517) 373-1695.

MOBzdh

APPENDIX E

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM
REQUESTING THE INCLUSION OF SPECIFIC ITEMS

IN LOCAL HEARING OFFICER REPORTS

26l

262

STATE OF MICHIGAN

«ca‘h-
ire-m DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION :1i.::::;.:§.?::.::
6:2"); lensing, Michigan 48909 ~onm~ oxé'rggfyznl. sn.
"""..;v on GUHECINDO SALAS
"'.':.-;.'::..:...'::.:";“ -.....jgggmm.
Pawn- Imuwm M E M O R A N D U M JOHN WATW.IL

 

NASJE Dan-u
SILVERENIA o. K'ANOY'TON
ANNETTA Mitten
DI. EDMUND F. vmorrra

September 29, I980 w‘mAgmLL'm
El-Ofllflo
TO: Practicing Hearing Officers and Persons Completing the Michigan

Department of Education Hearing Officers Training Workshops

FROM; John H. Braccio, Ph.D., Supervisor. Compliance, Approval and
Monitoring Program, Special Education Services

RE: Local Hearing Officer Decisions

The Department is in the process of analyzing and compiling data
from Local Hearing Decisions forwarded to this office since October, 1977.
In the process of reading and coding these hearing officer decisions, it
has become apparent that important informational items--necessary to
both understanding and analysis of the decision-~are frequently missing
from the report.

Jherefore, in order to assist both local hearing officers as well
as the Department, we are suggesting that the following information be
included in local hearing officer decision reports.

I. Relative to Background Information

-name, age and sex of child
-current diagnosis or suspected diagnosis
-current school placement or program (special ed and regular)

-administered and operated by specific school or intermediate
district

-chronology of previous special education programs and services
leading up to the EPPC/IEP where disagreement occurred

-EPPC/IEP recommendations
-agent/agency requesting the hearing

-the date of request for a due process hearing to resolve
issue(s)

-the date of the due process hearing and name of appointed hear-
ing officer (usually this information is contained on title
page of written decision)

263

-the representative/spokesperson for each party identified as
legal counsel, advocate, or title of position

-whether or not a pre-hearing conference was held, and any
determination or resolution of issues node at that time.

II. Relative to Issues of the Hearing

-statement of issues under contention (this may come from
parents' letter of request for hearing, statements made at
pre-hearing conference, statements made and recorded from
telephone contact. other)

~inclusion of any procedural notes-~such as, "closed hearing,"
"sequestered witnesses” or other procedural decisions arrived
at prior to hearing or formal presentation of evidence and
testimony.

III. Relative to the Hearing Officer Decision

-clear statement of decision relative to each identified issue

-rationale shall explain reason for decision. All reasons possi-
ble should be supported by noted evidence and testimony

-such notation should include (i.e., Parent Exhibit #1 or
Testimony. Agar, p. 36)

-list of child's needs could be included within this area or
within decision - with appropriate reference from evidence
and/or testimony.

Educational opinions, based upon hearing officer knowledge and/or
experience, nay be used to support decision - but should be supported
by record (description of child, child's behavior, etc.) as an
appropriate professional statement.

IV. Relative to Summary Statements

~summary statements

-may deal with tangential issues or issues not determined
"hearable" by hearing officer, or items such as challenges
of the impartiality of the hearing officer.

V. Relative to Findings of Fact

 

-what did the record tell you -» in statement form: i.e.,

1. (Student's name) meets definition of (emotionally
impaired) under (R 340.1706) of the Michigan Special
Education Rules and (I2Ia.5( )) of P.L. 94-142.

2. (Student's name) needs program and service to meet his
identified needs.

 

261i

3. His identified needs are - or have been described as -
documented by the record.

VI. Relative to Conclusions of Law

I.

(Student's name) is handicapped as defined in (Rule No.) of
of (Michigan and Federal law) and, as such, is eligible
for special education programs and services.

(School district) has responsibility for providing appropriate
services as determined by hearing officer decision.

 

Decision shall be implemented in accord with rules and regula-
tions of P.A. 451 of 1976 and P.L. 94-142 and are subject
to appeal as provided within both those laws.

VII. Relative to Follow-up Responsibilities of Local Hearing_foicer

1.

The local hearing officer will send a copy of the written
decision to the Michigan Department of Education, Compliance,
Approval and Monitoring Program, at time of completion.

Such copy will have name of student and parent(s) deleted
(blacked out) in accordance with FERPA.

NOTE: Through experience, it has been found that only a
“black grease pencil or crayola" totally conceals
typed matter.

Accompanying the above copy of the written decision, the
local hearing officer will submit specific information rela-
tive to the hearing as designated within the enclosed ”MODEL
FOR REPORT OF THE LOCAL HEARING OFFICER.” Copies of this
Model may be used for this purpose or other informational
methods designed to provide the Department with this infor-
mation will be acceptable.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Dr. Jane Scandary of this office at (517) 373-1695.

JHB/dh

Enclosures: 1) Model for Report of the Local Hearing Officer

2) Michigan Special Education Rules, as amended August
13, 1980.

REFERENCES

265

REFERENCES

Abeson. A.. & Zettel. J. The end of the quiet revolution: The Educa-
tion for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. ,Exgeptignal
mm: 1977, M: 114-128.

Borg. A.. & Gall. M. D. Educational.neseangh. New York: Longman.
1979.

Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Children's Defense Fund. .thldn 3 put 91.5ghggl.1n.Ameniga.
Cambridge. MA: Author. 1974.

Cook v. Edwards. 341 F. Supp. 311 (D.N.H.. l972).

Covarrubias v. San Diego Unified School District. Civil No. 70-394-3
(S.D. California. 1972).

Diana v. State Board of Education. C-70. 37 RFP (N.D. California.
1970).

Doe v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors. Circuit Court. Civil
Division. Milwaukee County (1969).

E2fi§£fll.B&Ql§I§£. 42 163. August 23. 1977.
6055 v. Lopez. 419 U.S. 565 (1975).

Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary School District. U.S. District Court
of Arizona (1971).

Hairston v. Drosick. 423 F. Supp.. 180 (1976).

Hannan v. Larche. 363 U.S. 420. 442 (1969).

Hobson v. Hansen. 269 F. Supp.. 401 (1967).

LarryP. v. Riles. 343 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. California. 1972).
Lebanks v. Spears. Civil No. 71-2897 (E.D. Louisiana. 1973).

266

267

Lee v. Macon County Board of Education. 490 F. 2d 460 (5th Circuit.
1974).

Mange. C. M.. a Henley. C. E. 9.95.1; analxsis .oispacial aducaiian
.dua moses: hearings in Michigam 1280:81. East Lansing:
Michigan State University. 1982.

Maryland Association for Retarded Children v. State of Maryland.
Equity No. 100-182-77676 (Circuit Court. Baltimore. Maryland.
1974).

Merriken v. Cressman. Civil Action No. 72-2057 (U.S. District Court.
Pennsylvania. 1973).

Michigan. Constitutlgn. Article VIII. Section 2. 1963.

Michigan. Insiiiuie an saacJal educaiien beams mamas. Lansing:
Michigan Department of Education. 1976.

Michigan- Public Act 18. Special Educatinn Enabling Act. 1958.
Michigan. Public Act 190. Iniecmediaie SQhQQl.Qi§I£1§I.A£I. 1962.
Michigan. Public Act 198. .Mandaiecxifinacial.Educatian.Act. 1971.

Michigan. Public Act 220. Handicapped and locational Education Needs
may. 1969.

Michigan. Public Act 451..Ih§.§£hQQl.QQd£.9I.l£l§. 1977.
Michigan. Specia1.£dugat19n Code as amended (1977).
Michigan. Snesial.Edu£aIiQn.Bules as amended (1980).

Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia. 348 F. Supp.
866 (D.D.C.. 1972).

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pennsylvania. 1971).

Public Law 93-112. Macaiianal.Bahabilitaiion.Aci.a£.1213. Section
504: July 269 1973.

Public Law 93-380. Education.bmandmants.oi.l£1i. August 21. 1974.

Public Law 94-142. Educaiien in: All flandimnad Children Act-
November 29. 1975.

San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez. 411 U.S. 1. 93 (1973).

268

Stewart v. Phillips. Civil Action No. 70-1199 (U.S. District Court.
Massachusetts. 1970).

Turnbull. H. R.. & Turnbull. A. P. Procedural due process and the

education of handicapped children. Egcus,on.ExceniiQnal
Shildnen. 1978. 2(9). l-l2.

U.S. Censjitutign. Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments. 1868.